/ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://archive.org/details/vindicatiOOanna 


A  VINDICATION 


OF       THE 


"Letters  o^  Psalmody," 


FROM       T  n  E 


STRICTURES  OF  JOHN  T.  PRESSLY,  D.  D. 


B  v 

WILLIAM*  ANNAN. 


PITTSBURGH: 

ruiNTv  b   WOOD   kl 


'r&lHCETOH     \ 

PREFACE 


The  reasons  which  have  led  to  the  publication  of  this 
volume,  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows: 

1.  Our  brethren  of  the  United  Presbyterian  body  earnestly 
invite  discussion  of  their  principles.  Thus  Dr.  Pressly,  in 
speaking  of   the  discordant  sentiments  held  upon  the  topic 

Imody,  observes  :  "  To  endeavor,  in  the  use  of  all  pro- 
per means,  to  remove  this  cause  of  division,  is  a  solemn  duty 
incumbent  on  all  the  followers  of  Jesus."  *  *  "There 
is  a  fault  somewhere,  *  *  and  every  one  should  ascertain 
whether  his  principles  and  practice  on  this  subject  are  con- 
formable to  the  word  of  God."*  We  have  endeavored  to  do 
our  part  o*'  this  labor  in  the  "Letters  on  Psalmody"  and  in 
this   u  Vindicat. 

2.  The  writer  is  constrained  to  regard  the  so-called  ;. 

of   the    "Letters"    not  only    as    having    left  unnoticed    the 
r  part  of  the  argument,  but  as  in   a  great  measure  a 
series  of  evasions,  as  far  as  it  does  go,  of  the  real  qui 
at   issue,   and  as    thus   adapted  (we   are  far  from  saving   in- 
tended) to  divert  the  mind  from  the  true  points  to  be  S< 
This  will  be  made  to  sppc  proceed. 

3.  The  numerous  injurious  reflections  of  a  personal  char- 
acter, which  the  reviewer  has  scattered  so  bountifully 
through  hi-  ■■■in   to   demand  some   explanation  be- 

I 


IV  PREFACE. 

fore  the  Christian  public.  "A  good  name  is  rather  to  be 
chosen  than  riches."  And  as  Dr.  P's.  offensive  personalities 
have  evidently  originated  in  entire  mistake  on  his  part,  it 
seemed  to  be  proper  to  furnish  the  sources  whence  he  and 
others  might  correct  any  unfavorable  impressions  that  may 
be  still  resting  upon  their  minds.  All  good  men  desire  to 
stand  fair  in  the  moral  judgment  of  their  fellows. 

To  show  how  readily  Dr.  P.  and  others  are  "  to  take  up  a 
reproach  against  their  neighbor,"  and  that  too  from  the 
slightest  pretext,  they  take  advantage  of  an  oversight  in  the 
"Recommendations"  of  the  "Letters;"  and  contrary  to  the 
express  title  of  the  book  itself,  and  in  defiance  of  its  distinctly 
stated  "plan,"  they  represent  the  author  as  proposing  to 
discuss  "the  exclusive  use  of  Rouse's  version."  But  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  how,  with  the  means  of  ascertaining  the 
truth  before  their  eyes,  in  the  very  title  and  "  proposed  plan" 
of  the  "Letters"  themselves,  they  could  have  made  such  a 
mistake. 

As  I  should  be  sorry  to  misrepresent  Dr.  P.,  I  copy  his 
own  words.  He  says  :  "  There  is  on  the  part  of  our  brethren 
a  want  of  ingenuousness,  whether  intentional  or  otherwise  it  is 
not  our  province  to  determine,  in  the  manner  in  which  they 
persist  in  presenting  to  the  Christian  public  the  real  question 
at  issue."  He  here  certainly  refers  to  Drs.  Paxton  and  How- 
ard, who  had  given  recommendations  of  the  "Letters  on 
Psalmody."  But  whether  Dr.  P.  intends  to  include  the  au- 
thor of  the  "  Letters" -among  his  "brethren,"  may  perhaps 
admit  of  a  doubt.  If  not,  then  the  statement  just  made  is 
inaccurate,  so  far  as  regards  ourself.  In  other  words,  Dr.  P. 
did  not  charge  the  author  with  proposing  to  discuss  "  the 
exclusive  use  of  Rouse's  version." 

The  H  Letters,"  I  admit,  discuss  the  merits  of  Rouse,  but 
with  what  view?  with  what  object?  To  argue  against  its 
"exclusive  use?"  By  no  means;  but  to  demonstrate  that 
this  versification  by  Rouse  is  not  "  an  inspired  Psalmody," 


PREFACE,  v 

the  word  of  God'1  In  the  tense  in  which   "our  prose 

10;"   not  ''the   songs  composed   in    heaven;''    but 
an   explanatory   u paraphrase w   of  those   tongst  at   LeflBt  to   a 

.-.  extent. 

is  the  author  believes  to  have  been  established 
in   the  early  part  of  the  "Letters,"  and   on   these  is   founded 
the  inference  that  these   brethren,  by   singing  Rouse,   sing 
omposition,"  and  practically  com- 
mit all  and  several  of  the  sins  which  in  that  aspect  ti 
in   the  habit   of  vehemently  charging  upon  JProsbytei 
Thus,  while   constantly  professing   to  adhere  "to  tli 
matter  provided  by   God,"   as  their  "True  Psalm  jdy" 
they  sing  "  a  paraphrase,"  part  human,  part  Divine!     And 
this  patchwork  of  Divine  and   human  composition  is  called 
'•  the   songs   of    the   Holy   Spirit,"    kc.       Thus,   this    favorite 
'•version''  of  the  brethren  is  a  constant,  practical  refutation 
of  their  own  theory  of  "  an  inspired  Psalmody,-''  is  a  "  mill- 
stone about  its  neck,"  and,  until  they  cast  it  away  and  get 
a  better  one,  ought  to  silence  their   ceaseless  denunciations 
of  those  whom  they  call  '•  the  friends  of  human  composure !" 
9,  heal  yourselves  !" 
I   hope  these  brethren  will  not  deny  that  this  is  a  le- 
gitimate line  of  argumentation,  a  lawful  use  to  make  of  their 
favorite  versification,  especially  since  their  leading  authors 
affirm   Rouse  to  be  "a  literal  and  correct   version,"'  "a  fair 
and  literal    version."  as   literal   as   the   laws    of  Vers;:'; 
will  allow,"  -God's  Psalm  book. 

The  foregoing  is  only  one  of  the  strange  misconceptions  of 

:    and  others.     Numerous   similar  mistakes   will 

be   exhibited   in   the   follow  The  author  of   the 

.<  under  the  cog- 
•   of  an   Omniscient    l  be   has    endeavored    to 

Lhren  fairly.     He   scorns   the  un- 
.on  of  being  "governed  only  by   {.. 

1* 


VI  PREFACE. 

of   party  success."     May  God  forgive  the  authors  of  such 
injurious  reflections  as  this  and  others  of  the  same  sort. 

We  Have  only  a  single  further  remark  in  this  connection. 
If  it  should  be  thought  that  the  efforts  now  in  progress  by 
the  United  Presbyterian  body  to  prepare  a  new  version  of  the 
Psalms,  are  designed  to  supersede  Rouse,  it  is  sufficient  to 
quote  the  action  of  their  last  Assembly  to  disprove  such  a 
supposition.  The  Assembly  resolve,  "That  any  version  finally 
receiving  the  sanction  of  the  Church  shall  be  incorporated 
and  published  .with  the  present  authorized  version."  This 
proves  that  the  Assembly  have  no  idea  of  laying  aside  Rouse, 
even  after  they  shall  have  succeeded  in  framing  a  new  ver- 
sification. 


A  VINDICATION. 


PART   I. 

IS  BOUSE 'S    VERSIFICATION  AX 
INSPIRED  PSALMOD  1 '  t 

THERE  is  a  class  of  persons  in  the  Church 
who  speak  of  the  controversy  on  Psalmody 
as  trifling,  and  unworthy  of  grave  consideration  by 
Christian  men.  But  in  this  they  do  not  appear 
to  act  wisely.  So  long  as  it  forms  one  of  the  two 
principal  grounds  of  division  and  separate  organ- 
ization among  large  bodies  of  the  professed  fol- 
lowers of  a  common  Lord — so  long  as  in  connec- 
tion with  the  doctrine  of  close  communion,  it  is 
vehemently  maintained  as  a  binding  Scriptural 
ral  considerable  denominations 
I  t  liberty  to  think,  write  and  utter  sentiments 
the  most  d  to  the  ministerial  and  Chris- 

nding  of  other  lav 

ich  grounds  as 
doof  from  them  as  in  a  certain  - 
"common  and  unclean" — bo  Ion lt  as   this  schism 


8  rouse's  versification 

is  perpetuated,  the  seamless  robe  of  the  Divine 
Saviour  rent  in  pieces,  the  zeal  and  resources  of 
our  common  Christianity  vainly  squandered  in 
separate  and  often  hostile  labors  to  advance  sec- 
tional instead  of  true  ecclesiastical  prosperity  ;  so 
long  as  these  results  are  commonly  witnessed,  it 
is  vain  and  foolish,  or  worse,  to  shut  our  eyes  and 
refuse  to  see  evils  of  such  magnitude.  The  breth- 
ren who  with  great  industry  urge  these  and  similar 
grounds  of  ecclesiastical  separation,  are  men  care- 
fully trained  in  this  controversy,  and  some  of  them 
of  unquestionable  talents  and  considerable  learning. 
Christian  courtesy,  therefore,  no  less  than  a  desire 
to  extend  the  truth,' forbids  us  to  pronounce  their 
plea  a  pure  figment,  a  silly  prejudice,  &c.  It  is 
our  duty  to  prove  by  sound  argument,  that  their 
cause  is  untenable,  and  their  position  as  separate 
sects  a  criminal  waste  of  the  resources  of  the 
Church,  in  upholding  and  propagating  a  schism. 
Influenced  bj  such  considerations  as  these,  as  well 
as  by  a  desire  to  contribute  his  share  to  so  needful 
a  work,  the  writer  published  the  volume  entitled, 
"  Letters  on  Psalmody,  a  Review  of  the  lead- 
ing arguments  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  Book 
of  Psalms."  This  work  was  reviewed  by  John 
T.  Pressly,  D.  D.,  in  the  "United  Presbyterian 
Quarterly."  It  is  upon  this  review  that  we  now 
propose  to  offer  some  strictures  in  the  way  of  reply. 


NOT    AX    JHBPIRRD    PSALMODY.  I 

It  may  bo  proper  to  premise  that  it  is  nut  a 
tble  feature  of  Dr.    Pressly's   review,  that 
amistakable  indications  of  undue  excite- 
ment    Every  man  lias,  of  course,  the  abstract 

right  to  adopt  such  a  style  of  composition  afl 
corresponds  with  hifl  own  character — but  as  by 
common  consent,  the  work  reviewed  did  not  offend 
ist  Christian  courtesy,  I  venture  to  suggest 
that  such  phrases  as  "disingenuousness,"  "mis- 
dentation,"  "cannot  but  know,"  &c,  &c, 
might  have  better  been  omitted.  They  convince 
:.  tie,  but  rather  serve  to  injure  even  a  good 
cause.      B  they  expose   their  author   to  a 

severe  retort,  under  certain  circumstances.     An 
example  in  point  BUggests  itself.     In  speaking  of 
what  is  known  as  "  Rouse's  version,"   some  one 
had    used   tke   phrase  "  Rouse's   Psalms."     This 
■  roused  the  displeasure  of  this  re- 
r  in  a  high  degree.    Accordingly  in  "Pr< 
on    Psalmody/1   page   ITS,   we   read    as  follows: 
"To  call  the  Divine  songs  in  this  version,  '  Rouse  s 
.    IB  to  evince  gross  ignorance,  or  something 
■  '  so,  then  "  tfa 
of  the  i\  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  E 

land*' must  be  "  ignorant,  or  something 

L648,  tl  i  "the  minis- 

f  Bdinburj  .  imine  the 

corrections  of  the  brethren  appointed   to  r 


10  rouse's   versification 

Rouse  s  Psalms,  and  to  confer,"  &c.  If  the  re- 
viewer has  not  the  original  minute,-  he  can  find 
the  extract  in  Dr.  Cooper's  Evangelical  Repository, 
March,  1852.  Thus  this  sort  of  weapon  has  two 
edges,  and  often  cuts  friends  as  well  as  foes,  not 
excepting  the  hand  that  holds  it.  We  are  sorry 
to  be  compelled  to  add,  that  a  large  part  of  "  the 
review"  breathes  a  spirit  equally  remote  from 
the  calm  confidence  of  one  who  feels  that  he  has 
a  good  cause,  and  is  able  to  defend  it.  And  when 
in  "Pressly  on  Psalmody,"  we  are  repeatedly  re- 
ferred to  "the  fearful  death  of  the  sons  of  Aaron," 
"  profane  ministers  of  religion,  on  account  of  a 
disregard  of  Divine  appointment  in  the  worship 
of  God,"  and  to  "the  awful  calamity  which  befell 
them," — when  thus  the  great  body  of  the  Protest- 
ant Church  of  Christ  throughout  the  world  are 
distinctly  warned  of  the  extreme  hazard  of  ven- 
turing to  differ  on  this  subject  writh  a  small  frag- 
ment as  represented  by  this  reviewer  —  we  are 
irresistibly  reminded  of  the  case  of  the  disciples 
wTho  proposed  to'  "  call  down  fire  from  heaven" 
upon  " certain  who  followed  not  with  them;"  and 
the  mild  rebuke  of  the  blesse^  Saviour  —  "Ye 
know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of."*    The 

*  Other  evidences  of  undue  excitement  on  the  part  of  the 
reviewer  are  such  as  these :  u  garbled  extracts,"  "  wily 
tactician,"  "artful  evasion,"  "discharged  his  gall,"  u  senti- 
ments   so  utterly   inconsistent   with    due  reverence  for  the 


AN    [NSPIBZD    PSALMODY.  11 

mploys  the  r  rarces  of  an  advo- 

cate who  baa  a  weak  cause  and  is  embarrassed  with 
J  difficulties  from  which  he  vainly  Btrii  I 

extricate  himself. 

Id  attempting  to  dispel  the  mists  in  which  the 

reviewer  has  enveloped  the  true  questions  at  i 

we  are  encouraged  by  the  fact  that  he  and  his 

brethren    have  sly   advised   and   coin, 

such  a  course  on  our  part.     Agreeably  to  their 

deliberate    counsel,    their    solemn    exhortation  in 

their  Testimony,  we  propose  "  seriously  to  consider 

grounds  of  their  controversy  with  us — to  give 

them  our  prayerful  consideration."*      Tliis  whole- 

they  of  course  wish  us  to   follow, 

v  not  lead  to  the  results  which  they 

I  prefer. 

In   undertaking  a    satisfactory  examination  of 

Q8  and  arguments  employed  in  the  uLet- 

"  it  was  the  dictate  of  common 

that  the   reviewer  should  state  accurately 

what   those   positions   and    arguments   really   are, 

and  as  far  as  possible,  in  the  precise  language  em- 

1  by  the  work  itself.     On  page  iil  of  "the 

re,"  we  find  the  "plan  proposed  to  bepur- 

roed  in  the  discussion,"  embracing  chiefly  three 

distinct  i  They  are  as  follows  : 

word  of  G« 

the   truth  and  justrr*  .tr  in- 

jurious   all 


12  rouse's  versification 

I.  "  To  examine  the  question  whether  our 
brethren  employ  in  praise  i  the  songs  of  inspira- 
tion, an  inspired  Psalmody' — or  rather,  whether 
their  system  of  Psalmody  be  not  to  a  great  extent 
an  explanatory  paraphrase." 

II.  "The  question  of  a  Divine  warrant  for  the 
exclusive  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms,  as  the  only 
and  perpetual  Psalmody  of  the  Church,  under  both 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  and  to  the 
end  of  time." 

III.  "  The  more  excellent  way.  Statement  and 
defence  of  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church." 

It  is  proposed  to  inquire,  as  briefly  as  possible, 
how  the  reviewer  disposes  of  the  facts  and  argu- 
ment adduced  under  these  several  heads. 

The  pertinency  of  the  "question"  embraced  in 
the  first  part  of  the  "plan  proposed"  above,  must 
be  obvious  to  every  one,  we  should  suppose.  This 
reviewer,  be  it  remembered,  in  behalf  of  himself 
and  his  brethren,  professes  to  praise  God  in  "  an 
inspired  Psalmody,"  while  our  system  of  praise  is 
"an  uninspired  one."  The  reviewer  sings  exclu- 
sively "the  Lord's  songs" — "God's  Psalm  book  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  others" — "the  book  of  hymns 
which  God  has  provided" — "a  literal,  correct  and 
true  version" — "a  faithful  translation  of  the 
original  text  " — "  like  the  prose  translation  of  our 


\'iT    AN    INSPIRED    PSALMODY.  13 

Bible,  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  word  of  G 

are  specimens  of  the  laudations  they  employ 
when  speaking  of  "  Rouse's  versification  of  the 
Psalms."    Some  of  these  writers  even  go  so  far  as 

to  eall  their  Psalmody  "  songs  composed  in  heav- 
en"— "the  Holy  Spirit's  Psalms" — while  they  un- 
sparingly ensure  our  system  as  a  "  human  Psalm- 
ody"— "human  composition  in  preference  to  that 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  fcc,  &c.  Assuming  all  this 
to  be  true,  these  brethren  proceed  to  denounce  us 
as  guilty  of  "an  impious  rejection  of  the  Psalms 
which  God  has  given  and  the  substitution  of  hymns 
of  human  composure" — "  preferring  our  own  ef- 
fusions to  the  heavenly  hymn  book,"  &c.  &c. 

Now  it  is  the  avowed  object  of  more  than  forty 
pages  of  the  "  Letters  on  Psalmody,"  to  prove 
these  arrogant  pretensions  of  the  reviewer  and 
his  brethren  to  be  utterly  without  foundation,  so 
far  as  regards  their  system  of  Psalmody,  and  their 
harsh  and  unbrotherly  inferences  in  disparage- 
ment of  ours,  to  be  largely  applicable  to  tfu  m- 
To  instance  only  in  one  feature  of  the 
.  this  revievet  admits  "that  by  a  nice 
calculation  the  author  (of  the  Letters)  proves,  to 
his  own  apparent  satisfaction  at  least,  that  our 
(the  r  reion  of  the  Psalms,  instei 

.:.d  faithful   translation,  is   made 


14  rouse's   versification 

up*  of  "  interpolations,"  "  human  inventions,'' 
and  "patchwork  explanations;"  and  these  "  im- 
provements upon  David"  are  not  mere  "  different 
words,"  "different  language,"  from  the  original, 
but  different  thoughts  and  sentiments. 

Now  if  the  reviewer  had  read  with  any  care  this 
part  of  the  "  Letters,"  he  would  have  seen  that  the 
author  proposed  to  prove,  and  that  he  has  proved, 
much  more  than  he  has  here  indicated,  to  his 
United  Presbyterian  readers.  After  a  laborious 
and  careful  induction  of  particulars,  examination 
of  his  "inspired  Psalmody"  in  Rouse,  and  a 
minute  inquiry  into  the  principles  and  practice  of 
the  Scottish  Churches,  the  sum  of  the  matters 
proved  is  stated  as  follows,  on  pages  65  and  66 
of  the  "Letters:" 

1.  "  We  have  shown  by  undeniable  facts,  that 
the  reviewer  and  his  brethren,  by  using  Rouse's 
paraphrase  of  the  Psalms,  have  taken  away  from 
4  the  songs  of  inspiration,'  in  which  they  say 
6  God  teaches  his  Church  how  to  praise,'  an 
amount  of  matter  equal  to  forty-jive  songs  of  the 
size  of  Ps.  117  ;  and  that  they  have  added  '  hu- 
man composition'  to  the  same  amount." 

2.  "  We  have   proved  that  the  earliest  speci- 

*  The  a  Letters"  do  not  say  "made  up"— but  on  Dr.  P's. 
theory,  greatly  corrupted,  so  as  to  be  in  very  many  parts  no 
version  at  all,  but  a  patchwork  paraphrase. 


NOT    AX    INSPIRED    PSALMODY.  16 

in  metre,  I  by  our  :- 

tisfa    forefathers,   sung   by   their   martyrs   at    the 

.    and    by    their    early   re;  were    not 

1  upon  the  reviewer's  literal  principle,  but 
much  more  closely  resembled  the  style  and  manner 
of  the  Presbyterian  system,  'being  largely  para- 
phrastic   and  with  numerous  gospel  turns,  & 

3.  "  We  have  proved  that  from  the  period  of 
itablishment  of  the  Reformation  down  to  the 
minster  Assembly,   the  Church  of  Scotland 

employed  in  pnblic  and  private  worship,  a  versifica- 
:1ms  (Sternhold  and  Hopkins')  which 
utterly  ooi  and  repudiates    the    principle 

jated  by  the  reviewer^  —  viz.,   'a  literal  and 
faithful  version  of  the   whole  book  of  Psalms' — 
being  in  many  particulars   more  like  the  Pr 
terian  Psalmody  than  'a fair  and  literal  version. '" 

4.  <;  We    have     proved   that    '  Rouse's    ver 
is   '  the  word  of  God'  in  a  sense  similar  to  t! 
which  a  piece  of  cloth  interwoven  with  more  than 
five  hundred  patches  of  cotton  or  tow,  ' 

silk  fabric.1'     Yet  the  reviewer  prof  i  sing 

in-pi;  In  their  u  True  Psalm 

[here  to  the  very  n  >vided 

.  that 

of  a  trans- 

I   will 
allow.  in,  k*  We  rej<  ct  a  bo  the 


16  rouse's   versification 

system  of  praise  which  God  has  given  to  his 
Church.  " 

But  if  the  four  conclusions  above  copied  from 
the  "  Letters"  be  correct,  the  affirmations  of  the 
reviewer  and  others  are  without  any  foundation. 

Now  what  reply  does  the  reviewer  condescend 
to  make  to  these  facts,  which  so  thoroughly  ex- 
plode his  professions  of  "  an  exclusively  inspired 
Psalmody;"  which  prove  that  he  and  his  brethren 
have  exalted  into  a  term  of  communion  one  of 
their  own  inventions,  which  had  no  countenance 
from  the  mother  Church  of  Scotland ;  and  which 
convict  them  of  the  very  sins  and  "  strange  fire" 
with  wThich  they  denounce  other  Churches?  Here 
is  his  answer :  "  You  know  that  this  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  question!'''  With  various  expres- 
sions of  contempt,  he  professes  to  see  no  force  or 
meaning  in  this  sort  of  argument  !  He  ventures 
to  affirm  that  it  only  proves  that  Rouse's  "version 
is  in  some  respects  imperfect !"  But  how  could 
the  reviewer  make  such  a  statement  ?  One  chief 
design,  repeatedly  avowed  by  the  author  in  his 
first  five  "  Letters,"  was  to  show  that  Rouse  is  no 
version  at  all,  and  therefore  not  an  "  inspired 
Psalmody,"  but  a  "patchwork  paraphrase;"  and 
that  those  who  sing  it,  necessarily  are  guilty  of 
offering  "  the  strange  fire"  of  "  human  composi- 
tion."    Yet  this  reviewer  can  see  no  relevancy  in 


NOT   AX   IKSPIRRB    fSALMODT.  17 

in  all  this  •  the   exclusive 

.  or  tli"  of  his  "  metri- 

cal translation  !"     But  is  it  not  something  to  the 

purpoe  ve  that  he  and  his  brethren  have  no 

"metrical  translation,'5  hut  only  a  i;  paraph 

or  mixture    of  Divine   and    human   composition  ? 

at  the  Bubject  in  another  light.     Bays  the 

irer,  "  If  the  Psalms  are  sung  in  the  worship 

of  God  at    all,   of  course   some   version  must   be 

But   if  this  be  a  correct  statement,  then 

he  and  his  brethren  "  ring  the  1 

all:  M  for  it  is  proved  in  the  "Letters"  that  they 

ly    "Rouse's    Paraphrase    of    the 

ssembly  call  it. 

will  not  pretend  that  "  the  Psalms."  and  an 

"explication"  of  the  Psalms,  are  the  same  thing; 

tat  the  General  A-  <f  the  Church 

•tland   v.  ;nt  as  not  to  be  able  to 

call  things  by  their  right   nam    ^. 

in  :   the   reviewer  an  I  .    ••  We 

I   to   the  inspired, 

pro\  ided  by  God."    In- 

!     k*  Rouse's  paraphrase"  conl 
to  the  inspii  3  I     With  somethi 

ight  talk  of  a  con. 
tary  with  v  nii- 

Letters 
<>n  Pftalmj  1  he  will 

2* 


18  rouse's   versification 

tish  General  Assembly  spoke  the  truth  when,  in 
sanctioning  Rouse,  they  call  it  "  a  paraphrase ," 
not  less  than  twenty  times,  but  never  a  version. 
And  these  "  additions"  in  Rouse  are  not  merely 
"  different  language  from  the  prose"  of  our  Bibles, 
as  the  reviewer  would  have  us  believe  (p.  26),  but 
the  thoughts,  sentiments,  explanations,  of  Rouse 
and  his  improvers — in  other  words,  the  "  human 
composition"  of  the  poet,  mixed  largely  with 
"  the  inspired  song!"  Still  the  reviewer  insists 
that  " Rouse's  Psalms"  is  "the  Word  of  God," 
equally  with  the  prose  version  of  our  Bibles.  But 
did  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land— did  any  man  of  common  sense,  ever  call 
our  "  prose  translation  of  the  Bible,"  a  para- 
phrase ? 

The  reviewer  inquires  with  great  apparent  confi- 
dence, u  Does  not  Mr.  Annan  know  that  a  transla- 
tion might  be  given  in  many  instances  in  different 
words  (from  the  prose  version)  and  yet  be  equally 
faithful  ?"  And  he  goes  on  to  represent  our  objec- 
tions as  founded  in  the  fact  that  Rouse  "  employs 
different  language  from  the  prose  translation" — 
"  words  and  phrases  not  in  the  prose." 

We  will  reply  to  these  strange  misstatements, 
simply  by  a  brief  exhibit  of  the  points  established 
in  the  "Letters,"  omitting,  for  want  of  room, 
most  of  the  examples  there  cited  under  each  head. 


HOT   AN    [NSPIRBD    PSALMODY.  19 


1.   Vain  repetition  : 

■  their  habitat!  us.       all  round  ibo  tithe 

And  tints  when  they  did 

'2.   Additions  to  the  sense: 

J  del  I  did  qoI  Btar,  n 

A  - 
in       To  Him  that  Egypt  ma 
their  Who  did  A  in, 

Lid  kill  all  their  tirstborn. 

3.  Rouse's  improvements  on  David  : 

I  am  like  a  pelican  in  the  wilder-    Like  pelican  in  wilderness, 

Forsaken  I  hav> 
I  am  like  an  owl  of  the  desert.        1  like  an  owl  in  deteii  am. 

That  nightly  there  doth  moan. 
-■  ntaman  before   them.  1  man  hefore 

By  whom  they  should  ; 
Unto  their  teeth.  Cut"  their  teeth, 

I  bloody  cruelty. 

There  are  more  than  one  hundred  and  seventy 
examples  of  these  "  improvements"  in  Rouse: 
and  any  person  of  ordinary  intelligence  can  per- 
ceive that  they  do  not  consist  in  mere  u  different 
words  and  phrases,"  as  Dr.  P.  intimates.  A  full  half 
has  been  added  in  the  paraphrase,  in  all  except 
the  first  example — added  to  the  idea  as  given  by 
inspiration,  not  mere  "words  and  phrac 

4.  Improvements  in  the  sense  to  make  metre  : 

Beboke  the  com]  dtitude 

Of  bulls  - 
with  the  calTOfl   of  th< 

till  • 

with  |  take. 

Til. 


20  rouse's   versification 

There  are  more  than  three  hundred  and  thirty 
examples  of  this  sort,  and  the  objection  to  this 
way  of  "  writing  better  than  David"  lies  especially 
against  such  a  use  of  the  Divine  NAMES  as  we 
here  find,  where  they  are  thrown  in  to  lengthen  a 
line  and  make  metre.  Can  this  be  a  sacred  use  of 
these  awful  titles  of  the  Sovereign  of  all 
worlds  ?  Yet  this  use  of  the  peculiar  names  of 
the  glorious  object  of  all  religious  homage,  is 
very  frequent  in  Rouse,  not  less  than  eighteen 
or  tiventy  examples  occurring  in  the  119th  Psalm, 
as  versified  by  Rouse  ;  for  instance  : 

Prose  Version.  Rouse. 

I  have  seen  an  end  of  all  per-  An  end  of  all  perfection  : 

fection.    But  thy  commandment  Here  have  I  seen,  O  God; 

is  exceeding  broad.  Bat  as  for  thy  commandment 

It  is  exceeding  broad. 

And  on  the  principles  of  Dr.  P,,  an  equally 
unwarranted,  if  not  profane  liberty,  is  taken  with 
the  Divine  attributes,  such  as,  "  almighty,"  "  eter- 
nal,"  "  most  high,"   iC  most  gracious,"  &c. 

5.  Rouse  attempts  to  "  write  better  than 
David,"  by  transposing  in  more  than  forty  in- 
stances the  inspired  order  of  thought.  As  for  ex- 
ample :  "  Hide  thy  face  from  my  sins  and  blot 
out  all  my  transgressions."     Rouse  has  it : 

"  All    mine   iniquities    blot  out, 
Thy    face    hide  from   my   sins." 

When  this  reviewer  detects  Dr.  Watts  in  trans- 
posing some  of  the  verses  of  Ps.  119,  he  indig- 


NOT   AH    INSPIRES    PSALMODY.  21 

nantly  inquires,  "  N  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  ex- 
hibit* I  ader   it  necessary 

that  the  v  "  mnch  tr;  ."'  ke. 

••It  would  be,"  he  adds,  M  an  indignity  to  any 

stable  man  to  treat  his  writings  in  this  way,91 

I  .        1!     &  ems  never  to  have  suspected  that  he 
himself  was  guilty,  in  substance  at  least,  of  offer- 
u  indignity"  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
not  less  than  forty  instances  perpetrated  by  B 

and  himself.  And  it  is  of  this  u  logical  connection 
of  clauses  or  sentences"  that  a  writer  in  the  United 
ian  of  April  4.  says,  %>  Even  the  words 
of  Scripture  without  the  Divine  order  or  arrange- 
ment, is  not  Scripture"  It  follows  therefore,  that 
in  more  than  forty  examples  of  this  sort,  the  re- 
viewer has  all  his  life  been  singing,  not  WW] 
but  "human  composition.'' 

6.   Another  large   department  of   I  "im- 

provements upon  David"  consists  of  single  epithets 
or  qualifying  adjectives,  thrown  in  apparently  to 
save  the  credit  of  the  verse  ;  such  as.  bashful,  nia- 
et,  fierce,  Bpitefully,  fcc.  The 
4*  Letters"  give  near  fifty  examples  of  this 
which  have  nothing  in  the  prose  version  nor  in 

►nd  with  them.     And 
qualifying  epithets,  be  it  ob 

words  and  phi  'ions, 

*  Pressly  oa  Paalmody,   p.  1 14. 


22  rouse's  versification 

ideas,  which  the  author  of  the  inspired  text  did 
not  see  proper  to  express.  Of  course  they  are 
mere  "  human  inventions." 

We  must  stop  here.  Many  other  specimens  of 
what  is  said  to  be  "  a  true  and  literal  version," 
"a  full  and  faithful  version" — "  like  the  prose 
translation  of  the  whole  Bible"  —  "  adopted  by 
those  (the  Church  of  Scotland)  who  regarded  it 
as  a  literal  and  correct  translation  of  the  original" 
and  "  to  be  equally  regarded  as  the  Word  of 
God" — are  adduced  in  the  "  Letters."  Other 
stronger  illustrations  of  the  paraphrastic  nature 
of  Rouse  will  come  before  us  as  we  proceed — but 
surely  the  examples  now  adduced  cannot  be  ex- 
plained away  as  "  different  language,"  mere  "sup- 
plementary words  and  phrases!  "  If  Dr.  Pressly 
had  read  the  "Letters  on  Psalmody"  with  any 
care,  he  would  have  discovered  that  the  author 
founds  his  objections  to  this  feature  of  Rouse  on 
something  more  solid  than  "words  and  phrases," 
viz.,  upon  the  thoughts  and  sentiments  thrown  in 
by  House  in  the  structure  of  his  paraphrase,  by 
which  he  has  attempted  "  to  write  better  than 
David."  Of  course  Dr.  P.  iustifies  Rouse  so  long 
as  he  sings  his  versification. 

While  speaking  of  "Rouse's  versification"  the 
reviewer  makes  the  following  statement :  "  Sup- 
pose that  Mr.  Annan  has  (had)  accomplished  all 


NOT    AX    [NSPIRED    PS  ZO 

that  he  1  ,  it  would  amount 

only  to  this,  that  viewed  in  the  light  of  (ac 
and  faithful  version,'  our  metrical  version 
some  i  imperfect."     Ami  that  is  all,  ac- 

cording to  Dr.  Pressly,  which  Mr.  A. 

7  to  prove."     Let  us  see  what  Mr.  A. 
has  attempted  to  prove : 

(1.)  That  neither  Rouse,  nor  the  previous  \ 

ion  of  Bternhold  and  Hopkins,  (adopted  by 
the  Church  of  Scotland,)  nor  the  earliest  Psalmo- 
dy of  the  Scottish  martyrs,  Wishart  and  oth<  rs, 
(in  the  times  of  John  Knox) — none  of  these  were 
formed  on  the  principle  of  the  reviewer  and  his 
brethren,  viz.,  "an  exclusive  inspired  Psalmody;" 
hut  were  all,  without  exception,  viewed  and  adop- 
ted as  "paraphrases."  Now,  if  Mr.  A.  "has 
proved"  this,  (and  we  believe  he  has  fully  proved 
nothing  to  do  with  the  merits  of  the 

bion?"     Does  he  not  thus   prove  what  they 
call  their  principle  of  "an  inspired  Psalm 
to  be  mere  ?//<  >n  of  their  own,  v 

their  a  set  up,  without  authority  or  pre- 

or  common  forefathers?    Who,  then, 
are  tl 

Mr.    A.   has  "attempted   to  that 

while  ■  and  his  brethren  den( 

tion,"  they  are  habitually  doing  thing. 


24  rouse's  versification 

And  has  this  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject? 
What  is  their  profession  of  a  "  correct  and  faith- 
ful version  "  worth,  if  they  habitually  trample  it 
under  foot  ? 

(3.)  Mr.  A.  has  attempted  to  prove  that  whilst 
the  reviewer  claims  that  he  and  his  brethren  sing 
"the  word  of  God,"  "  a  correct  and  faithful  trans- 
lation" "sacred  songs,  of  which  God  is  the 
author,"  "songs  composed  in  heaven" — while  the 
reviewer  and  his  brethren  boldlv  assert  all  this,  it 
is  proved  by  the  best  authority,  even  that  of  the 
Scottish  General  Assembly,  and  by  careful  exami- 
nation of  Rouse,  that  these  brethren  do  not  sing 
the  "sacred  songs  of  the  Bible,"  but  only  a 
"paraphrase"  of  many  of  those  songs!  It  is 
further  proved  by  Mr.  A.  that  they  "  lay  aside  ^ 
useless"  the  20th  verse  of  Ps.  72,  and  parts  of 
other  songs  sufficient  to  form  fifteen  whole  Psalms 
as  large  as  Ps.  1.  This,  Mr.  A.  has  certainly 
"attempted  to  prove."  And  will  the  reviewer 
still  affirm  that  all  this  "has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question  at  issue  !"  He  and  his  brethren  de- 
nounce the  Presbyterian  and  other  Churches  for 
not  singing  "the  songs  which  God  has  given," 
for  "an  impious  rejection  of  those  songs,"  &c, 
&c.  But  here  it  is  proved  that  they  themselves 
do  not  sing  those  sacred  songs,  but  a  patchwork 
paraphrase  of  many  of  them!     And  in  addition 


NOT    AN    INSPIRED    PSALMODY.  2$ 

[e  as  useless"  many  parts  of  others ! 
may   talk   as   they  piease   about  the  sound- 
>f  their  principle  of  "a  correct  and  faithful 
version,"    "the  word  of  God,"  &c.      Men  of  dis- 
cernment will   try  them  by  their  established  prac- 
n< I  jud£e  the  value  of  their  principle  by  u  its 
fruits."      If,  from   Sabbath  to   Sabbath  they  utter 
in  praise,  and  thus  sanction  a  mixture  of  "human 
composition  "   with  the   Divine — human    thought, 
sentiment,  "explication"  by  Rouse  and  others — 
it  is  futile  to  claim  to  sing  u  inspired  songs,"  "the 
-   composed  in  heaven,"  iV_c.      By  the  use  of 
a  paraphrase  they  violate  their  own  principle  and 
pronounce  it  worthless. 

Such  is  an  imperfect  summary  of   the   points 
clearly  established,  in   the  first  five  of  the    uLet- 
>n  Psalmody."      Yet  this  n  viewer  s;iy> — "It 
:its  only  to  this,  that  our  metrical  version  is  in 
some   respects   imperfect '"      What   strange  blind- 
Another   curious   illustration    of  the   obli- 
quity of  the  reviewer's  mental  vision  occurs  here. 
When  commencing   the   discussion  of   the  points 
which  relate  to  k%  Rous<  A  torsion,"  &c,  as  staled 

above,  the  author  of  the  "Letters"  referred  to  "the 
main  proposition"  of  a  leading  writer,  as  follow^  : 
••.l  it  <m<1  faithful  version  of  the  whole  book 

of  Pa  in    the   lV.i 

ot    tne   Oiiureh.        Ut   thifi   "proposition "    the   re- 


26  rouse's  versification 

viewer  says,  "Mr.  Annan  turns  his  back  upon 
it" — "he  is  too  wily  a  tactician  to  risk  an  attack 
upon  an  impregnable  fortress" — "he  declines 
an  attack  upon  the  main  proposition,"  &c.  But 
how  could  the  reviewer  make  such  statements ! 
Why  more  than  forty  of  the  succeeding  pages  of 
the  "Letters"  are  chiefly  employed  in  attacking 
this  "main  proposition,"  in  proving  that  he  and 
his  brethren  sing  no  such  "correct  and  faithful 
version  of  the  whole  book  of  Psalms  " — nor  indeed 
any  version  at  all.  The  reviewer,  as  is  abundant- 
ly proved,  instead  of  singing  "  a  version  or  trans- 
lation," uses  "  a  paraphrase,"  Or  "  explication"  of 
many  of  the  Psalms,  in  which  are  found  some  jive 
hundred  scraps  of  "human  composition,"  varying 
in  size  from  two  and  a  half  lines  dowTn  to  a  single 
word  or  phrase.  Ail  these,  with  very  few  excep- 
tions, are  not  mere  "words  and  phrases"  but 
man's  improvements  on  the  Divine  thought — human 
"additions  to  the  very  matter  provided  by  God," 
in  the  original  Hebrew.  The  plain  Christian  can 
see  the  proof  of  these  statements  by  comparing 
Rouse  with  the  prose  translation  of  our  Bibles, 
which  even  the  reviewer  admits  to  be  "most  ex- 
cellent and  faithful"  and  much  greater  men  pro- 
nounce to  be  "the  best  translation  in  the  world," 
and  "as  literal  as  can  be,  to  avoid  obscurity." 
So  far  from  "  turning  his  back  upon  the  main  pro- 


NOT    AN    INSPIRED    PSALMODY.  27 

position,"  he  has   made   this    "impregnable   for* 

tress  "  to  appear  a  very  insecure  refuge  for  hardly 
pressed  and  bewildered  polemics  !  This  notion  of 
k%  a  correct  and  faithful  version  of  the  whole  bcok  " 
is  found  to  be  a  myth,  a  shadow  without  the  sub- 
stance. This  is  abundantly  established  in  the 
kt  Letters."  Why  does  Dr.  P.  wish  us  u  to  make 
a  direct  attack  M  upon  a  logical  nonentity — ex- 
cept so  far  as  to  prove  that  such  is  its  character ; 
and  to  show  that  this  "  main  proposition,"  as  held 
by  those  who,  like  the  reviewer,  habitually  in  prac- 
tice trample  it  under  foot,  is  mere  sound  without 
sense.  When  Dr.  P.  begins  to  use  "a  correct 
version  of  the  whole  book  "  we  will  examine  it. 
From  what  has  baen  said,  it  is  truly  astonishing 
to  hear  the  reviewer  seriously  assert,  "  The  sub- 
ject of  versions  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  merits 
of  the  controversy."  But  when  he  wishes  to  ex- 
cite prejudice  against  Dr.  Watts  and  the  Presby- 
terian theory  of  Psalmody,  he  ifl  very  profuse  in 
showing  that  we  use  no  version  at  all,  but  only  an 
imitation  of  the  Psalms.  Many  pages  of  his  book 
and  of  the  review  is  consumed  in  the  discussion  of 
this  topic  ;  and  most  fearful  epithets  are  hurled  at 
our  head  for  "  practically  declaring  that  the  ivork 
of  God  needs  to  be  mended.''  While  he  is  harp- 
ing  on    this    favorite  string,   the    great    qu« 

-  to  be  uver$ion  or  no  ver9wn  .'"    Accordingly 


28  rouse's   versification 

he  tells  us  —  "The  question  is  simply  this  — 
shall  we  use  God's  Psalm  book,  or  -ball  we  use 
one  prepared  by  uninspired  men. ''•*  rl  hat  is  pre- 
cisely "the  question"  discussed  in  the  first  five 
"Letters  on  Psalmody."  It  is  demonstrated  that 
the  reviewer  uses  no  version  (or  translation)  of 
God's  Psalm  book  at  all,  but  really  a  patchwork 
paraphrase  of  that  "  book  !" — a  Psalmody  in  large 
measure  "prepared  by  uninspired  men,"  viz.,  chief- 
ly by  Rouse  !  We  prove  by  the  most  undeniable 
facts,  that  whilst  professing  to  be  very  zealous 
for  "a  true  and  literal  version  as  of  Divine  ap- 
pointment"— he  habitually  adulterates  and  cor- 
rupts the  pure  stream  of  ir;  spired  song,  with  some 
five  hundred  filthy  rills  of  "  human  composition." 
He  is  very  wise  in  endeavoring  to  keep  this  ques- 
tion entirely  out  of  view. 

The  kt  Letters  on  Psalmody"  thus  settle  most  con- 
clusively, as  we  humbly  conceive,  the  first  "ques- 
tion" in  the  "proposed  plan,"  as  stated  by  the  au- 
thor (p.  21).  They  prove  to  the  satisfaction,  as 
we  believe,  of  every  fair  and  unprejudiced  mind, 
that  the  reviewer  does  not  sing  "  the  songs  of  inspi- 
ration, an  inspired  Psalmody,"  but  a  "patchwork 
paraphrase"  of  many  of  these  songs.  We  might 
next  properly  proceed  to  examine  Dr.  Pressly's  re- 

*  Preacher,  Feb  23,  1844.  See  also,  Pressly  on  Psalmody, 
pp  12,  108,  118,  &c,  where  he  denounces  the  Presbyterian 
Psalmody,  because  it  is  no  version  at  all. 


NuT    AX    ENBPIBBD     PSALMODY.  26 

view  of  the  Becofid  proposition  of  the  "plan,"  viz., 
u The  question  of  a  Diyixi:  warkaxt  for  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  the  book  of  Psalms  as  the  only  and 
perpetual  Psalmody  of  the  Church."  There  are 
still,  however,  a  few  things  introduced  in  this  part 
of  Dr.  P's.  review,  apparently  to  excite  odium  and 
urease  prejudice,  and  which  seem  to  call  for  some 
slight  notice. 

It  has  always  been  a  familiar  piece  of  logical 
strategy  with  the  reviewer  and  others,  to  represent 
Presbyterians  as  "  impiously  rejecting"  the  book 
of  Psalms  from  the  praises  of  God.  Accordingly 
in  this  review  we  have  the  old  song  over  again. 
"If  you  deny,"  he  says,  "that  we  have  Divine 
appointment  for  the  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms, 
why  do  you  not  say  so?"  "Deny  Divine  appoint- 
ment for  the  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms!"  We 
can  hardly  believe  that  any  Presbyterian  was 
ever  guilty  of  so  silly  and  wicked  a  thing.  If  the 
reviewer  had  read  with  care  the  book  he  professes 
to  review,  he  would  have  found  our  principle  stated 
more  than  once,  as  follows  :  u  The  whole  Word  of 
God"  (of  course  including  "the  book  of  Psalms,") 
ut«  oj  direct  os"  in  praisi  (as  well  as  in 

prayer).  This  would  have  answered  his  question, 
and  Bayed  his  ink  and  paper.  We  most  strenuous- 
ly advocate  4*  the  book  of  Psalms,"  and  thai,  too, 
as  of  li  Divine  appointment."     The  real  points  of 


30  rouse's   versification 

difference  are  these :  The  reviewer  professes  to 
sing  "a  true  and  literal  version  or  translation;'' 
but  all  the  time  he  sings  only  an  explanatory 
"  paraphrase,"  corrupted  with  hundreds  of  patches 
of  "  human  composition."  We  Presbyterians,  on 
the  contrary,  sing  just  what  we  profess,  viz.,  a 
paraphrase  of  the  book  of  Psalms.  Again,  the  re- 
viewer "lays  aside  as  useless"  large  parts  of  the 
Psalms,  thus  improving  upon  "  the  very  matter" 
of  "  God's  Psalm  book."  We  omit  certain  parts, 
also,  as  less  suitable  for  praise  than  other  portions 
of  the  Scriptures.  The  reviewer  and  his  brethren 
call  their  "paraphrase,"  u  the  songs  which  God 
has  given,"  "  an  inspired  Psalmody,  literally  and 
truly,"  and  excommunicate  their  elders  and  mem- 
bers for  singing  anything  else,  even  in  family  wor- 
ship. Our  Church,  on  the  contrary,  authorizes 
their  "paraphrase"  (Rouse)  to  as  many  of  our 
congregations  as  choose  to  use  it;  but  approves, 
also,  another  paraphrase,  including,  in  many  of 
the  Psalms,  New  Testament  explanations.  For  all 
that  we  do  in  this  affair,  we  claim  "to  have  Divine 
appointment"  And  yet  Dr.  P.  seems  to  be  aston- 
ished\  because  we  do  not  deny  "  Divine  appoint- 
ment for  the  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms  ! !  "  We 
would  just  as  soon  think  of  denying  the  Divine 
appointment  for  the  use  of  all  the  rest  of  the  Bible  ! 
We  have  thus  stated  the  plain,  unvarnished  fads 


NOT    AX     LXSI'IRKD    PSALMODY.  81 

of  the  ease.     The  reviewer  will  probably  retort, 
uwily  tactician/5  "artful,"  ''disingenuous?"  but 

that  proves  nothing  to  his  purpose.  The  "Let- 
n  Psalmody"  furnish  abundant  evidence  of 
all  these  statements,  and  Dr.  P.  will  not  find  it 
easy  to  refute  even  a  small  part  of  that  evidence. 
Again,  says  Dr.  P.,  M  If  these  Psalms  are  to  be  used 
at  all,  surely  it  is  proper  to  use  them  as  translated 
in  wa  correct  and  faithful  version  ;'"  and  he  asks, 
in  great  apparent  bewilderment,  "Is  it  to  'a  cor- 
rect and  faithful  version'  that  you  (the  author  of 
the  *  Letters')  object."  But  this  is  mere  trifling. 
Prove,  forsooth,  that  you  have  any  version  in 
metre,  and  your  question  will  be  pertinent.  As 
matters  now  stand,  the  true  question  is  this,  "  Is 
your  'paraphrase'  more  agreeable  to  the  Scrip- 
tural rule  on  the  subject  than  ours?"  Is  the  use 
you  make  of  the  book  of  Psalms  the  only  right 
>r  is  tmr  use  of  the  Psalms  equally  right  and 
scriptural — yea,  much  more  so. 

The  reviewer  repeats  his  former  desperate  effort 
to  .-h<»w  that  "Rouse's  verification"  of  the  Psalms 
is  an  inspired  Psalmody:  "  Like  the  prose  trans- 
lation "ft  lie  whole  Bible" — "substantially  correct 
and  faithful" — "  to  be  regarded  as  the  Word  of 
rrect  and  faithful  translation,"  &c. 
And  he  then  i  to  misstate  and  oaricatore 

the  authur  of  the  "Letters"  in  the  manner  before 


32  rouse's   versification 

intimated,  viz.,  as  having  "  made  the  important 
discovery"  that  .Rouse  "  employs  different  language 
from  the  prose  translation,' ' — "has  not  in  every 
instance  adopted  the  same  precise  language" — 
"has  an  amount  of  supplementary  words  and 
phrases"  &c,  &c.  But  this,  we  must  be  permitted 
to  say,  is  the  merest  trifling  with  the  subject.  If 
the  reviewer  really  thinks  these  statements  credit- 
able to  his  candor  and  intelligence,  we  have  two 
very  plain  and  easy  answers. 

1.  We  consent  to  regard  "Rouse's  paraphrase" 
as  really  and  truly  inspired  equally  with  our  Eng- 
lish Bible,  on  the  following  condition,  viz.,  so  soon 
as  the  reviewer  will  adduce  any  intelligent,  well 
informed  man,  or  set  of  men,  Jew  or  Gentile,  in- 
spired or  uninspired,  Papist  or  Protestant,  ancient 
or  modern — elder,  priest  or  bishop — session,  synod 
or  general  assembly,  who  have  ever  thought  or 
spoken  of  our  common  translation  of  the  Bible  as  a 
"paraphrase."  Let  such  a  person  or  persons  be 
produced,  and  we  will  fulfil  our  part  of  the  agree- 
ment. 

2.  We  respectfully  suggest,  that  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Church  of  Scotland  (1644  to  1650), 
when  giving  their  official  sanction  to  "Rouse's 
Psalms,"  never  once  speak  of  them  as  a  "literal 
version  or  translation."  On  the  contrary,  the  offi- 
cial title  which  they  use  not  less  than  twenty  times. 


NOT    AN    INSPIRKD    PSALMODY.  33 

:    "  now    paraphrase" — w,our   own 

paraphrase,"  "the  English  paraphrase, ".&c,  &c. 
Yet  this  reviewer  calls  it  "a  true  and  literal  trans- 
lation, superior  to  anj/  other  in  the  English  lan- 
guage," "framed  on  the  principle  of  a  translation 
as  literal  as  the  laws  of  versification  will  allow," 
<tc.  Ralph  Erskine  shows  what  was  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  when  he  entitles  his  "Exposition  of 
the  Song  of  Solomon"  "a  paraphrase,  or  large 
explicatory  poem."  \Ye  may  safely  assume  that 
Ralph  Erskine  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  were  not  ignorant  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  terms  they  employed.  For  abundant 
illustrations  of  these  points,  we  of  necessity  can 
only  refer  to  the  first  five  of  the  "  Letters  on 
Psalmody."  We  have  space  for  only  a  single  ex- 
ample. 

Prose   Y>:<  -  Rouse. 

Id  To  him  that  Egypt  spa 

their  firstborn.  Who  rfi 

Arul  in  hit 

Dui  kill  ail  their  jirstborn. 

Is  that  what  the  Church  of  Scotland  meant  by 
"a  true  and  literal  translation?" 

The  reviewer,  however,  professes  to  have  lighted 
upon  a  chapter  in  the  English  Bible,  in  which,  he 
say.-,  "  the  supplementary  matter"  employed  "to 
and  faithful  translation"  is  e<[iial  to 
nine  lines  of  U<>u>e.  J>ut  why  does  he  so  care- 
fully  avoid   any   reference   to    the   ]  We 


34  rouse's  versification  • 

should  like  to  see  that  remarkable  chapter  !  But 
suppose  •  that  such  a  chapter  exist,  we  are  not 
charging  Rouse  with  adding  "  supplementary 
matter,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  correct  and 
faithful  translation.'1  Our  charge  is,  that  Rouse 
is  proved  to  be  •*  a  paraphrase,"  in  the  sense  that 
Ralph  Erskine  understood  the  term,  and  that  the 
Psalms  in  his  versification  are  to  a  large  extent 
"  explicatory  poems."  This  we  presume  no  one  in 
his  senses  has  ever  said  of  any  part  of  the  English 
translation  of  our  Bible — which  the  reviewer  ad- 
mits to  be  "the  best  translation  in  the  world," 
"  in  general  the  most  excellent" — "  as  literal  as 
possible  to  avoid  obscurity." 

No  one  questions  that  in  our  admirable  prose 
version  "  there  are  words  and  phrases,  for  which 
there  are  no  corresponding  terms  in  the  Hebrew 
text."  Thus,  "The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart, 
There  is  no  God;"  "Thou  hast  enlarged  me  when 
I  was  in  distress."  The  italics  show  how  much  the 
English  supplies  to  the  Hebrew  in  these  and  similar 
extracts.  This  .is  the  sort  of  "supplementary 
matter"  employed  in  our  Bibles.  But  now* look 
at  a  few  specimens  of  Rouse's  "  supplementary 
matter,"  and  which  Dr.  Pressly  seems  to  wish  us 
believe  "  an  absolute  necessity  for  the  purpose  of 
unfolding  the  meaning  of  the  language  trans- 
lated." 


NoT    AN    UTBPIRBS    psalmody.  35 

Prosk  Vek  Dr.  P's.  Literal  Version. 

I  delayed  not.  I  did  not  wi  long, 

Ai    IhOi      that  slothful   ar> . 

I  thought  on  my  ways.  i  thought  upon  my  foitmm  ways, 

I   try. 
up  again.-:  ap  in  urath 

To  make  of  its  their  pmj. 
The  moon  to  nile  by  night.  ,••  moOD  10  char. 

Which  shineth  ui  our  sight. 
Unto   thee.  To  tlu-e  mij  kelp 

nd8 

All  my  complaint   and  moan. 

Does  the  reviewer  really  think  these  specimens 
and  hundred*  of  others,  ua  literal  translation?'* 
Can  he  persuade  himself  that  "like  the  prose  ver- 
sion," Rouse  was  "adopted  by  those  (the  Scottish 
Churches)  who  regarded  it  as  a  literal  or  correct 
translation?"  Does  he  seriously  think  these  and 
similar  examples  are  "as  literal  as  the  laws  of 
versification  will  allow?"  Is  it  not  plain  that  in 
using  and  defending  Rouse  with  all  these  patches 
of  ^  human  composition,"  he  virtually  decides  that 
he  has  "improved  upon  David" — "  can  write 
better  than  David?"  And  in  view  of  such  noto- 
rious facts,  what  right  has  Dr.  P.  to  harp  perpet- 
ually upon  M  the  sin  of  singing  human  compo- 
sure," whilst  he  habitually  does  the  same  thing  ! 
What  low  views  of  the  nature  of  inspiration  must 
that  man  entertain,  who  can  seriously  and  per- 
sistently claim  that  "  like  the  prose  translation" 
Rouse  is  M  an  inspired  system,  the  veritable  word 
of  God."*      To  add  to  the  unaccountable  mystery 

*  The  only  passage  in  our  English  Bibles,  so  far  ns  we  re- 
member, which   even  *^/n*  to  countenance  the  human  addi- 


36  house's  versification 

of  the  subject,  the  United  Presbyterian  Quarterly , 
when  this  reviewer  was  one  of  its  editors,  gravely 
informs  us,  "  We  reject  all  additions  to  the  system 
of  praise  which  God  has  given  to  the  Church ;" 
and  the  "True  Psalmody"  adds — "We  adhere 
to  the  very  matter  provided  by  God  ! ! "  Oh  preju- 
dice, how  blind  art  thou  !  These  are  certainly  cu- 
rious illustrations  of  the  reviewer's  theory,  which, 
he  says,  consists  in  "  employing  God's  Psalm 
book  to  the  exclusion  of  others  which  have  been 
composed  by  uninspired  men  !"  Rouse's  poetry 
an  inspired  Psalmody  !  "  Equally  with  the  vulgar 
translation  in  our  Bibles  !" 

We  trust  enough  has  now  been  said  to  prove, 
even  to  the  dullest  intellect,  what  it  is  we  object 
to  in  the  proposition  that  a  "  correct  and  faithful 
version  of  the  whole  book  of  Psalms  should  be 
employed  in  the  Psalmody  of  the  Church,  as  by 
Divine  appointment."  How  simple,  in  this  con- 
nection, are  the  reviewer's  questions,  "With  what 
does  Mr.  A.  find  fault  in'  this  connection  ?  Is  it  a 
correct  and  faithful  version?"  Would  he  prefer 
one  which  is  incorrect  and  unfaithful  ?"   "To  these 

tions,  improvements,  &c.,  of  Rouse  and  the  reviewer,  is  1  John 
2  :  23,  where  the  following  is  printed  in  italics,  as  not  con- 
tained in  the  original  Greek,  viz.  H  But  he  that  acknowledged 
the  Son,  hath  the  Father  also."  But  Home  says,  a  this 
clause  is  established  on  unquestionable  authorities,  and 
ought  not  to  be  printed  in  italics  as  an  addition."  Dr. 
Doddridge  takes  the  same  view.  Thus  this  passage  fails  the 
reviewer  as  an  authority. 


NOT    a    INSPIRED    PSALMODY.  37 

questions,"  he  adds,  uwe  detire  to  see  an  answer!*' 
"  We  search  for  light,91  he  farther  adds,  u  upon  the 

question,   *  Is  a  fair  and  full  version  of  the  Psalms 

of  Divine  appointment.'  "  We  fondly  hope  we 
have  now  given  him  the  "light"  he  seeks — for 
we  have  proved  that  on  his  literal  version  theory, 
it  follows  that  lie  has  no  Psalmody  of  "  Divine 
appointment,"  simply  because  he  has  no  "  fair 
and  full  version"  of  the  Psalms  in  metre,  but  only 
a  .patchwork  paraphrase  of  many  of  them.  So 
obvious  is  it,  that  by  his  own  admission,  his  Psalm- 
ody lacks  u  Divine  appointment!"  Thus  much 
for  the  additions  and  improvements  upon  David. 
We  now  turn  to  the  omissions — the  parts  of  the 
inspired  text  which  are  excluded  from  Rouse. 

This  reviewer  is  very  severe  upon  those  who, 
as  he  interprets  them,  u  lay  aside  as  useless  "  some 
parts  of  God's  Psalm  book.  "  Do  you  think,"  he 
says,  M  that  the  word  of  God  has  been  given  in 
such  a  defective  form  that  some  parts  of  it  may 
be  laid  aside  as  useless,  while  portions  may  be 
•ed,"-&c,  kc.  But  the  whole  force  of  this 
objection,  so  far  as  it  regards  the  Presbyterian 
principle,  lies  in  a  logical  blunder,  a  begging  of 
the  question.  He  assumes,  without  the  shadow 
of  proof,  that  "the  whole  book  of  Psalms'1  was 
given  to  be  lit*  rally  employed  in  matter  and  form  . 
K  the  exclusive  and  all-Stlffioient  Psalmody  of  the 
4 


38  rouse's  versification 

Cliristian  dispensation,  as  well  as  the  Jewish ;  and 
that  to  the  end  of  time.  This  we  of  course  deny, 
and  Dr.  P.  must  prove  it,  not  take  it  for  granted. 
Besides,  even  if  it  were  true  that  Rouse  has  not 
"laid  aside  as  useless"  any  part  of  the  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  Psalms,  has  he  not  largely  "added 
to"  the  very  matter  and  thought  of  the  inspired 
record  ?  Will  the  reviewer,  on  his  principles,  in- 
form us  which  is  the  greater  sin,  to  "take  away 
or  add  to  the  word  of  God/'  In  fact,  Dr.  .P. 
consents  to  both  these  «,  as  can  easily  be  shown. 
The  easiest  method  of  testing  the  reviewer's  prin- 
ciples is  to  try  him  by  his  practice.  Take  these 
examples : 

Prose  Version  in  our  Bibles.  Reviewer's  Literal  Version. 

And   God,  even  our  own  God,  Our  God  shall  blessings  send  ; 

shall  bless  us.  "  even  our  own  God,"  excluded. 

A  testimony  in  Jacob.  His  testimony;  "in   Jacob"  is 

"laid  aside  as  useless." 
Israel  had  walked  in  my  ways.  Israel    my  ways    had    chose  ; 

"walked  "  omitted  and  chose  sub- 
stituted. 
And  it  shall  be  well  with  thee.  (Laid  aside  as  useless  by  Rouse 

Ps.  128:  2.  and  the  reviewer.) 

Which  by  night  stand  in   the  You  that   praise   him   nightly 

house  of  Che  Lord.  there;  the  word  "  stand"  is  left 

out,  and  "  praise  him  "  put  in  its 
place. 
And  all  judges  of  the  earth.  ("Laid  aside   as  useless"   in 

Ps.  148:  11.  second  version.   Rouse  improves 

upon  David.) 
The  prayers  of  David  the  son  ("  Laid  aside  as  useless") 

of  Jesse  are  ended.   Ps.  72 :  20. 
In  the  red  sea.    Ps.  136  :  15.  ("  Laid  aside  as  useless.") 

Some  of  these  specimens  of  "  writing  better  than 
David  "  were  cited  in  the  "  Letters" — but  the  re- 


NOT    AN    INSPIRED    TSALMODY.  39 

viewei  tends  to  take  do  notice  of  them.    He 

strongly  insinuates,  however,  thai  Presbyterians 
are  constantly  guilty  of  "offering  strange  fire  be- 
fore the  Lord  ;"  and  in  stilted  style  he  makes  the 
announcement,  "From  the  throne  of  the  Eternal, 
the  declaration  comes  forth,  'Whatsoever  I  com- 
mand you,  observe  to  do  it;  thou  shalt  not  add 
thereto  nordiminisli  from  it  /'  "*  Thus  he  pronoun- 
ces his  own  doom.  But  the  serious  charge  that  we 
Presbyterians  "impiously  reject  the  Psalms  which 
God  has  given  to  be  sung  M — u  lay  aside  as  useless 
parts  of  the  word  of  God,"  &c,  recoils  upon  the 
reviewer  in  another  aspect.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  titles  prefixed  to  most  of  the  Psalms  are  for 
the  most  part  admitted  by  all  eminent  Oriental 
scholars  to  be  parts  of  the  inspired  text  as  really 
as  the  fir-  of  Isaiah  and  Paul's  epistles, 

and  other  books  of  the  Scriptures.  But  they  are 
nearly  all  excluded  from  Rouse.  Of  course  this 
M  "the  impious  rejection"  of  large  parts  of  the 
book  which  Dr.  P.  says  is  of  Divine  appoint- 
ment to  be  tang  \ 

In  proof  of  these  positions  Dr.  A.  Alexander 

re 'found  (most  of  them)  in 

the  Hebrew,  an  1  are  integral  parts  of  the  com- 

*  Dr.  tfl  to  inform  his  U.  P.  readers  that  this  text 

is    in    i  :>art   of  the   Levitical   law  :   and 

_.itory  u  the 
which  stoned  a  man  for  gathering  sticks  on  the 
ftc. 


40  rouse's  versification 

position " —  "  parts  of  the  text  and  inseparable 
from  it."  Home  says,  "  We  have  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  very  many  of  them  are  not  canonical 
parts  of  the  Psalms,"  though  he  admits  that  others 
"  are  of  very  questionable  authority,  as  not  being 
extant  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts."  "To  omit  the 
titles,"  adds  Dr.  Alexander,  "is  to  mutilate  the 
sacred  text."  Tholuck  and  Hengstenberg  take 
the  same  ground.  Kitto  receives  all  of  them  as 
canonical,  "  except  where  there  is  strong  internal 
evidence  against  them."  And  e^en  the  United 
Presbyterian  paper,  the  Christian  Instructor,  edit- 
ed by  Dr.  Dales,  says,  "  the  titles  of  the  Psalms 
*  *  *  were  written  by  the  sacred  poets 
themselves."  "The  same  thing  occurs  in  the 
prophets  ;  e.  a.  the  prediction  of  Baalam,  the  Psalm 
of  Habakkuk,  and  the  song  of  Hezekiah.  That 
David  followed  this  custom,  at  least  occasionally, 
is  evident  from  2  Sam.  22,  and  Ps.  18.  We 
may  also,  with  great  confidence,  ascribe  to  David 
the  titles  of  Ps.  22  and  56,  which  (titles)  are 
poetical  in  form."*  But  Rouse  and.  the  review- 
er "lay  aside  as  useless"  nearly  all  these  inspired 
titles,  equal  in  the  aggregate  to  fifteen  sacred 
songs  of  the  size  of  the  first  Psalm.  What 
now  becomes  of  the  reviewer's  "great  principle," 
which  he  says,  "  we  hold,"  viz.,  that  "a  correct 
*  See   Christian  Instructor,  March,  1855. 


NOT    AN    INSPIRED    P6ALM0DY.  41 

and  faithful  version  of  the  whole  book  of  Psalms 
should  be  employed  in  the  Psalmody  of  the  Church 
as  of  Divine  appointment."     What  has  become  of 

the  ?' impregnable  fortress/'  since  it  is  proved  that 
he  lias  abandoned  it  to  the  owls  and  the  bats?  He 
professes  to  sing  "  the  whole  hook  of  Psalms/'  and 
yet  he  excludes  inspired  matter  to  the  amount  of 
forty-five  songs  of  the  size  of  Ps.  117  !!  A  dis- 
play of  temper  is  a  poor  answer  to  these  unques- 
tionable facts. 

But  what  explanation  docs  the  reviewer  devise 
for  this  "impious  rejection"  of  large  parts  of  the 
"songs  composed  in  heaven?"     He  does  not  at- 
tempt to  refute  Alexander  and  Home,  who  say 
that  u  these  titles  are  found  in  the  Hebreiv  text, 
as  far  as  we  can  trace  its  history,  as  integral  parts 
of  the  composition,"  and  that  uvery  many  of  them 
arc  extant  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts."     He  does 
not  undertake  to  refute  the  Cltristian  Instructor 
of  his  own  Church,  which  is  constrained  to  admit 
11  these  titles  were  written  by  the  sacred  poets 
themselves."     lie  has  nothing  to  say  to  the  State- 
ment of  Dr.  Alexander,    "that  these  titles,  in  all 
Hebrew  manuscripts,  bear  the  same   relation  to 
to  ly  of  the  Psalms  that  the  inscriptions  in  the 
and   in  Paul's  epistles  bear  to  the  sub- 
•  of  the  composition :"  and  of  course  he  had 
no  more  right,  on  his  principles,  to  exolade  these 

4* 


42  rouse's  versification 

titles  than  to  exclude  the  first  verses  of  Isaiah  and 
the  epistles  of  Paul,  when  he  reads  them  from  the 
pulpit. 

What  then  is  the  reviewer's  reply?  Why  he 
refers  to  "  a  writer"  who  says,  "  Expositors  are 
by  no  means  agreed"  as  to  the  inspiration  and 
importance  of  these  titles,  "  some  regarding  them 
as  subsequent  additions,"  others  as  U  original  parts 
of  the  Psalms."  This  is  certainly  very  cogent 
argument  !  Some  writers  regard  the  doctrine  of 
atonement  as  no  part  of  Divine  Revelation — ergo, 
we  ought  not  to  receive  it !  Of  as  little  avail  is 
his  reference  to  "  ancient  fathers,"  Augustine, 
Hilary,  &c,  who,  however,  are  not  quoted  as  say- 
ing that  these  titles  are  not  inspired  parts  of  the 
text. 

It  is  evident  that  the  reviewer  is  sadly  puzzled 
at  this  conjunction  of  his  affairs.  Instead  of 
aiming  his  logic  at  the  arguments  of  Alexander, 
Home  and  others,  and  attempting  to  disprove  the 
existence  of  these  titles  in  the  Hebrew,  as  com- 
ponent parts  of  the  Psalms — instead  of  proving 
the  falsity  of  their  statements,  that  "  very  many 
of  these  titles  are  canonical  parts  of  the  Psalms," 
"parts  of  the  text  and  inseparable  from  it,"  he 
quotes  Home  as  admitting  that  "  many  of  the 
titles  are  of  very  questionable  authority  as  not 
being  extant  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts."     But 


NOT    AX    INSPIRED    PSALMODY.  43 

who  doubts  it':    The  author  of  the  "Letters  on 

Psalmody"  made  the  same  quotation  from  Home! 
Alexander  and  Home,  however,  indicate  the  safe 
and  obvious  test  in  the  inquiry,  viz.,  "  are  these 
titles  found  in  the  original  Hebrew. "  Dr.  Alex- 
ander say-  they  are  found  "in  the  Hebrew  text  as 
far  a-  we  ean  trace  its  history,"  and  Home  admits 
that  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  of  the  Psalms 
have  "titles  in  the  Hebrewr  Scriptures."  The  re- 
viewer can  be  very  jealous  for  the  honor  of  the 
original  Hebrew,  when  it  happens  to  suit  his  pur- 
pose. Then  he  can  exclaim,  "Our  test  is  the 
original  text."  But  when  he  discovers  that  this 
"test"  evidently  compels  him  to  admit  the  Divine 
origin  of  many  of  the  titles  to  the  Psalms,  as  in- 
tegral parts  of  the  inspired  record — of  "the  whole 
book1'  which  he  insists  is  "of  Divine  appointment 
to  be  sung  " — under  these  circumstances  his  "  test " 
is  thrown  aside  as  worthless!  The  "Letters" 
which  he  professes  to  review  expressly  adopt  this 
safe  "test,"  viz.,  the  original  Hebrew  text,  to  de- 
cide the  question  how  many  of  these  titles  are  in- 
tegral parts  of  "  the  whole  book  of  Psalms."  But 
as  the  admission  of  this  his  own  "test,"  would  in- 
volve him  in  the  "impious  rejection"  of  inspired 
matter  equal  to  about  forty-five  .-ongs  of  the  size  of 
Ps.  117,  he  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  "  test " 
in  this  connection.      "  The  result  th«  JB  the 


44  rouse's  versification 

reviewer,  "the  titles  prefixed  to  the  Psalms  are 
omitted  (by  Rouse  and  himself),  *  *  *  be- 
cause it  is  a  question  whether  they  are  component 
parts  of  these  songs."  It  is  a  question !  Does 
the  reviewer  reject  every  part  of  Scripture  about 
whose  Divine  origin  there  "is  a  question?"  It 
is  a  question  with  some  vfriters  whether  1  John  5: 
7  is  of  inspired  origin,  viz.,  "There  are  three 
that  bear  record  in  heaven,"  &c,  and  so  of  numer- 
ous other  texts.  "  It  is  a  question"  whether  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  atonement,  &c, 
are  component  parts  of  revealed  religion.  Does 
he,  therefore,  "lay  all  these  aside  as  useless?"* 

But  the  reviewer  is  in  error  in  affirming  that 
there  "is  a  question"  about  the  larger  part  of 
these  titles.  Some  of  them,  we  admit,  are  not 
found  in  the  original  Hebrew,  but  the  greater  part 
of  them  have  precisely  the  same  claims  to  Divine 
inspiration  as  the  body  of  the  Psalms.  The  re- 
viewer may  raise  a  question  about  the  inspiration 
of  these  titles,  because  it  suits  a  purpose.  But 
no  scholar  will  deny  that  Alexander,  Home, 
Hengstenberg,  Tholuck,  Kitto,  the  Christian  In- 
structor, &c,  are  sufficient  to  settle  the  question, 
so  far  as  "  the  test  of  the  original  text"  can  do  it. 

*The  "True  Psalmody"  employs  the  same  fallacy,  thus: 
"The  authenticity  of  these  titles  is  not  universally  ac- 
knowledged." Do  Dr.  Dales  and  his  brethren  reject  all  doc- 
trines that  are  not  "universally  acknowledged  ?" 


NOT    AX    IXSPIKKD    PL ALMODY.  45 

But  the  reviewer  has  another  argument  for  his 
u rejection 9i  of  these  inspired  titles.     "When  the 

author  of   the  Letters,"   he  says,   "shall    r< 
the  fed  which  conceals  the  import  of  these  myste- 
rious inscriptions  so  that  we  can  use  them  intelli- 
gently, we  shall  be  prepared,"  &c.      He  is  waiting, 

ys.  M  until  the  author  of  the  Letters  shall 
remove  the  veil,"  before  he  will  even  u inquire 
into  the  propriety  of  introducing  these  titles  into 
his  metrical  version."  But  when  he  is  speaking 
of  Dr.  Watts,  and  his  labors  in  Psalmody,  he  is 
very  positive  and  abundant  in  showing,  that  to 
omit  parts  of  the  book  of  Psalms  from  a  system 
of  Psalmody,  is  the  same  as  "  to  lay  aside  as  use- 
less portions  of  the  word  of  God."*  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  he  even  refuses  to  "  inquire  into 
the  propriety"  of  laying  these  titles  "aside  as  use- 
or  which  he  says  is  the  same  thing,  to  in- 
quire  whether   they  are*  u  parts  of    the    word  of 

"  until  the  author  of  4%  the  Letters"  has  re- 
moved the  veil !  To  omit  any  parts  of  the  inspired 
Psalms  from  our  Psalmody,  is  the  same,  he  Bay?, 
reject  or  "lay  aside  as  useless  parts  of  the 
word  of  God."  But  here  he  rejects  all  these  titles. 
not  only  until  kk  the  author  of  the  Letters"  proves 
them  to  be  the  word  of  God — but  until  he  "shall 
have  removed  the  veil"  which  hangs  over  them  1 
*On  Psalmody,  p.  112. 


46  rouse's  versification 

But  is  not  this  a  great  want  of  due  reverence  for 
the  inspired  oracles  ?  How  would  such  a  principle 
affect  those  dark  parts  of  the  Prophecies,  for  ex- 
ample, ^hich  have  almost  as  many  different  inter- 
pretations as  there  have  been  expositors?  The 
reviewer,  of  course,  will  not  inquire  into  their  Di- 
vine inspiration  until  the  veil  is  removed  !  If  he 
will  show  in  Dr.  Watt's  writings  anything  so  near- 
ly approaching  German  Rationalism,  we  consent 
that  he  shall  expose  it. 

But  suppose  we  try  the  reviewer's  reverence  for 
the  word  of  God  by  his  own  test.  The  "  author 
of  the  Letters,"  he  says,  must  "remove  the  veil 
from  these  inscriptions,  so  that  we  can  use  them 
intelligently,"  and  then  he  will  he  prepared  to 
""inquire  into  the  propriety  of  introducing  them 
into  his  metrical  version,  or  to  receive  them  as  the 
word  of  God."  Very  well.  We  agree  to  aid  Dr. 
P.  in  so  difficult  a  hiatter.  We  first  try  to  lift 
"  the  veil"  from  the  title  of  Ps.  102  :  "A  prayer 
of  the  afflicted,  when  he  is  overwhelmed  and  pour- 
eth  out  his  complaint  before  God."  The  veil  in 
this  instance  is  not  a  very  thick  and  heavy  one ; 
and  we  fondly  hope  we  have  lifted  it,  so  that 
even  the  reviewer  can  now  "sing  it  intelligently!" 
Neither  is  it  a  very  thick  darkness  which  covers 
the  inscriptions,  or  titles,  of  Ps.  51  and  Ps.  18 — 
the  former,  "  A  Psalm  cf  David  when  Nathan  the 


NOT    AX    INSPIRED    TSALMODY.  47 

prophet  came  unto  him,  after  lie  had  gone  in  to 
Bathsheba  ;"  the  latter,  "A  Psalm  ot  David,  the 
servant  of  the  Lord,  wko  spake  unto  the  Lord  the 
1l)0I*k  of  this  song  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  deliv- 
ered him  from  the  hand  of  all  his  enemies  and 
from  the  hand  of  Saul."  Equally  unintelligible 
are  the  titles  of  V>.  52,  64j  665  57,  59,  00,  90, 
92.  As  to  Psalm  3,  its  title  is  also  under  "  the 
veil/'  as  follows:  "A  Psalm  of  David  when  he 
lied  from  Absalom  his  son."  But  of  this  title,  as 
of  most  others,  Dr.  Alexander  says  :  "  This  is  not 
a  mere  inscription,  but  a  part  of  the  text,  and  m- 
sej>arable  from  it"  The  titles  of  Ps.  7,  34,  36, 
and  many  others,  are  under  similar  impenetrable 
"  obscurity  !"  But  all  these  the  reviewer  rejects 
from  his  Psalmody,  not  merely  because  he  says 
there  uia  a  question  "  whether  they  are  component 
of  these  songs — but  until  "  the  veil"  over 
them  is  removed,  so  that  he  "can  use  them  intel- 
ligently." Tfius  it  is  plain  that  the  reviewer  re- 
nounces his  grand  "proposition,"  abandons  his 
"impregnable  fortress,"  viz.,  that  "the  WHOLE 
BOOK  of  Psalms  is  of  Divine  appointment  as  the 
Psalmody  of  the  Church."  lie  "lays  aside  as 
~s"  most  of  the  inspired  titles,  as  well  as 
other  partfl  of  "the  whole  honk."  And  when  we 
i nt*   into  the  Dbacittitj  and   «,<<'/<?</- 

character  which  he  charges  upon  all  these 


48  rouse's  versification 

inscriptions,  we  find  that  of  the  whole  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  not  more  than  twenty  have  the 
least  obscurity  about  them.  What  special  dark- 
ness can  even  a  child  discover  in  such  as  that  of 
Ps.  92 — "A  Psalm  or  song  for  the  Sabbath  day." 
And  in  regard  to  the  small  number  of  untranslated 
terms,  such  as  michtam,  "a  golden  or  excellent 
Psalm,"  maschil,  "for  instruction,"  &c,  it  would 
be  easy  to  adduce  much  other  phraseology  in  the 
Scriptures  quite  as  difficult  to  be  comprehended. 
But  the  reviewer  flies  to  another  refuge  for  his 
doctrine.  "  The  authors  of  our  excellent  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible"  he  says,  "have  assigned  to 
these  titles  a  position  distinct  from  the  Psalms 
themselves,  just  as  they  have  done  with  the  sub- 
scriptions (or  postscripts)  to  the  apostolic  epistles, 
which  are  not  regarded  as  of  Divine  authority." 
But  there  is  no  sort  of  parallel  between  the  two 
cases.  1.  The  postscripts  to  the  epistles  are  pub- 
lished separately  in  the  Greek,  and  as  no  part  of 
the  inspired  record.  But  the  titles  to  the  several 
Psalms  are  embodied  in  the  Hebrew  original, 
just  as  the  first  verse  of  Isaiah  is  the  title  of  the 
prophecy ;  and  so  in  Paul's  epistles.  2.  Our  most 
judicious  commentaries,  such  as  Dr.  Scott,  omit 
the  postscripts  to  the  epistles  altogether.  So  also 
Conybeare  and  Howson.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  whose 
extensive  learning    has    never    been    questioned, 


\\     INSPIRED    PSALMODY.  48 

:  "The  subscriptions  (of  postscripts)  to  the 
Barred  bookfl  are  of  little  or  no  authority,  all  hav- 
ing been  added  in  latter  times,  and  frequently  by 
injudicious  hands."  "The  postscript  to  the  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,"  Home  t<lls  us,  k*  direct- 
ly contradicts  Paul's  own  declaration  in  chap.  16: 
8."  "The  postscript  to  Galatians,"  he  says,  "is 
evidently  spurious."  Dr.  Clarke  says  of  that  to 
the  Romans,  "It  is  evidently  false" — of  that  to 
Titus,  wt  There  is  not  one  of  these  postscripts  of 
j  authority;  and  some  of  them  are  plainly 
ridiculous" — and  of  that  to  1  Corinthians,  "The 
ipt  in  the  common  editions  of  the  Greek 
l  is  palpably  absurd."  *  What  wonder,  then, 
that  "our  excellent  translation  of  the  Bible"  sep- 
arates these  postscripts  from  the  inspired  text — 
for  even  lh\  Pressly  admits  that  they  are  "  not 
of  Divine  authority!"  But  is  there  any  analogy 
between  these  absurd  and  ridiculous  postscripts, 
and  those  titles  to  the  Psalms  which  Alexander, 
II  Otjaerfi  of  our  widest  men  and  most  dis- 

till, ars.  declare  to  be  "parts  of  the 

IPbp'W  text  Bind  inseparable  from  it."   3.  Besidfis, 
this  obvious  reason  foi  |  virion 

of  the  titles  to  the   Psalms  in  English;  that  is  the 
common  usage  in  the  English  language.    But  it  was 

•.y  ftuthoritj  mb- 


50  ROUSE'S    VERSIFICATION 

otherwise  in  the  Hebrew,  which  embodied  the  titles 
in  the  song  itself.  And  if  all  this  were  not  sufficient 
to  prove  the  futility  of  this  part  of  the  reviewer's 
argument,  we  might  add  that  in  the  ten  Hallelujah 
Psalms,  Home  tells  us,  "the  venerable  translators 
have  rendered  the  word  Hallelujah,  '  praise  the 
Lord  '  —  which  they  (and  Rouse  also)  have  made 
a  part  of  the  Psalms  !"  Yet  the  reviewer  affirms 
that  "  the  translators  have  assigned  to  these  titles 
(he  makes  no  exception)  a  position  distinct  from 
the  Psalms  themselves. "  The  reviewer,  however, 
gives  his  reasons  why  he  thinks  the  term  "  Halle- 
lujah" is  not  a  title  to  any  of  the  Psalms:  "It 
must,"  he  says,  "be  a  title  of  a  peculiar  charac- 
ter ;  for  it  is  found  in  the  beginning,  in  the  middle 
and  in  the  end  of  the  same  Psalm  " — he  refers  to  Ps. 
147  and  148.  But  in  this  he  only  adds  to  the  em- 
barrassment of  his  position,  and  sinks  deeper  amid 
his  logical  difficulties.  He  admits  that  Tehillim 
is  the  Hebrew  title  of  the  "Book  of  Psalms.,, 
But  is  not  the  same  word  found  in  other  parts  of 
the  book  ?  See  Ps.  78  :  4  —  the  very  same  word 
except  the  plural  termination  oth  instead  of  im. 
But  if  it  is  not  so  very  absurd  thus  to  introduce 
the  general  title  of  "the  whole  book, "  why  is  it 
absurd  to  use  the  separate  titles  in  the  body  of  the 
separate  Psalms  ?  *     If  he  should  venture  to  quib- 

*The  reviewer's  acquaintance  with  poetry  must  be  ex- 
tremely small,  else  he  would  not  think  it  strange  or  absurd 


NOT    AN    INSPIRED    PSALMODY.  &1 

ble  about  the  plural  termination  oth,  instead  of 
Ml,  We  reply  that  Tchilloth  is  as  really  the  same 
word  as  w Tehillim,"  as  in  the  150th  Ps.  llalleluhu 
is  the  same  word  as  Hallelujah — a  position  which 
the  reviewer  asserts  as  a  part  of  his  argument. 
Thus  his  great  argument  to  prove  that  Hallelujah 
is  not  one  of  the  titles  often  of  the  Psalms  vanishes 
into  thin  air.  Yet  these  ten  titles  are  all  intro- 
duced into  his  Psalmody,  in  Ps.  146,  147,  148, 
fcc  But  he  says,  "we  sing  the  songs  themselves, 
not  the  titles  which  are  prefixed  to  them."  But 
Mr.  reviewer,  you  do  sing  ten  of  these  titles,  which 
you  represent  as  unintelligible,  u  under  a  veil,"  &c; 
and  to  embarrass  your  position  still  more,  your 
colleague,  Dr.  D.  Kerr,  says — "These  titles  were 
never  intended  to  be  sung."*  Of  course  to  this 
extent  your  Psalmody  has  no  Divine  authority. 

We  have  thus  shown,  if  we  mistake  not,  that 
the  6ystem  of  Psalmody  adopted  by  the  reviewer 
stands  justly  convicted  of  the  very  worst  faults 
which  he  charges  upon  Dr.  Watts'  system,  viz., 
1.  lie  does  not  sing  a  version  of  "the  sacred  songs 
themselves,"  but  a  paraphrase,  mixed  with  many 

that  the  title  of  a  poem  should  be  repeated  in  the  body  of  it. 
Nothing  is  more  common  among  our  best  poets.  Thus  Ten- 
rjboq'i  piece  with  the  title  u  Oriana,''  repeats  thus  : 

♦•  W : 
W€  to  battle  going, 

Ori.i. 
Aloud  the  hollow  bugle  blowing,  Ac." 

♦See  the  Preacher,   1852. 


52  rouse's   versification 

large  patches  of  "  human  composition. "  2.  He 
omits,  "lays  aside  as  useless,"  large  parts  of  the 
inspired  text.  3.  Of  course  his  pretensions  to  "a 
correct  and  faithful  version  of  the  whole  book  of 
Psalms  as  of  Divine  appointment,"  are  not  well 
founded  !  His  theory  of  Psalmody  explodes  under 
its  own  pressure,  vanishes  in  smoke.  4.  He  thus 
" improves  upon  David."  5.  In  addition,  he  sings 
ten  of  the  titles  of  the  Psalms,  which  he  repre- 
sents as  unintelligible,  and  not  "  component  parts  of 
the  sacred  songs;"  and  which  Dr.  David  R.  Kerr 
affirms,  "were  never  intended  to  be  sung!"  Of 
course  it  follows  that  Rouse  and  the  reviewer  have 
no  "fair,  correct  and  literal  version  of  the  whole 
Book  of  Psalms  in  metre  " — and  the  only  question 
of  any  importance  between  Dr.  P.  and  Dr.  Watts 
relates  to  the  degree  in  which  either  has  been  guilty 
of  so  great  "corruption  of  worship" — so  greatly 
"improving  upon  David." 

Having  now  disposed  of  the  first  question  in 
"the  plan  proposed"  in  the  "Letters,"  viz.,  "Is 
Rouse's  versification  an  inspired  system  of  Psalmo- 
dy ?" — we  are  prepared  to  proceed  with  "  Question 
II.  of  the  plan,"  viz.,  Is  there  a  Divine  Warrant 
for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms  in  the 
praises  of  the  Church."*  This  will  next  claim 
our  attention. 

*  In  regard  to  the  il  exclusive  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms," 
Dr.  P.   doe3  not  seem  to  have  very  clear  ideas  of  his  own 


NOT    AX    INSPIRED    PSALMODY.  hd 

theory.  Thus,  within  the  first  ticelr?  pages  of  u  Pressly  on 
Psalmody"  we  rind  the  following  discordant  statements  of 
the  u  question"  in  dispute,  viz.,  M  The  (question  is  simply  this  : 
shall  we.  in  the  pi aise  of  God,  employ  the  songs  contained  in 
the  book  of  Psalms  ?"  But  a  few  pages  before,  he  states  his 
theory  as  follows  :  "  We  have  no  authority  to  use  any  other 
Psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  soDgs  than  those  which  God 
has  furnished  in  his  word.'1  It  is  plain  that  the  latter  state- 
ment speaks  of  all  the  songs  in  the  Scriptures.  But  the 
former  speaks  only  of  those  which  are  contained  in  the  u  book 
of  Psalms."  The  Doctor  confounds  two  things  essentially 
distinct,  as  though  they  were  the  very  same,  viz.,  M  songs  in 
the  book  of  Psalms,"  and  "  songs  in  God's  word."  The 
book  called  the  "True  Psalmody,"  blunders  several  times 
in  the  same  way. 


54  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT    FOR   THE 


PART   II. 

IS  THERE  A  DIVINE  WARRANT  FOR 
THE  EXCLUSIVE  USE  OF  THE  BOOK 
OF  PSALMS? 

THE  second  principal  topic  discussed  in  the 
"Letters  on  Psalmody,"  is  in  these  words  : 
"The  question  of  a  Divine  warrant  for 
the  exclusive  use  of  the  book  of  psalms."' 
The  doctrine  maintained  by  the  reviewer  is 
this :  "  It  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  sacred  songs 
in  the  book  of  Psalms  be  sung  in  his  praise  to  the 
end  of  the  world  ;  and  we  have  no  authority  to  use 
any  other."  Dr.  Kerr  adds — "  We  are  under  the 
necessity  of  holding  those  who  depart  from  this 
appointment  (the  exclusive  use  of  the  Psalms),  as 
seriously  corrupting  one  of  the  ordinances  of  God." 
"We  have  no  authority,"  adds  Dr.  P.,  "to  use 
any  other  than  the  songs  contained  in  the  book  of 
Psalms."  How  far  these  brethren  have  "corrupted 
the  ordinance  of  God,"  as  they  themselves  have 
stated  it,  by  mutilating  the  sacred  text,  omitting 
large  portions  of  it,  by  singing  a  "paraphrase" 
instead  of  a  version,  and  by  mingling  with  the  in- 


BOOK    01    PSALMS    EXCLUSIVELY.  ■>■> 

spired  Psalms  many  Bootes  of  patched  of  --human 

composition" —  all    this    has    been    shown    in  our 

former  essay.    It  has  bete  demonstrated,  we  trust, 

that   to   SO  -    not    to    felQg    an    inspired 

Psalmody.  The  question  now  arises,  have  they 
Divine  authority  for  restricting  their  public  and 
private  praise  to  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms  *: 

In  this,  as  in  the  former  part,  We  confine  our 
strictures,  in  a  great  measure,  to  the  statements  of 
the  reviewer.  For  a  more  full  discussion  of  the 
topic  we  refer  to  Letters  6,  7  and  8  of  the  volume 
he  criticises.  We  are  not  re-writing  the  book,  but 
replying  to  the  reviewer. 

1.  At  the  outset  of  this  inquiry,  it  is  a  very 
formidable  objection  to  the  exclusive  theory,  that 
advocates,  with  all  the  industry  and  re- 
search they  have  bestowed  upon  the  subject,  can- 
not find  a  solitary  text  of  Scripture  to  give  direct 
iony  in  its  favor.  We  have  ju>t  been  read- 
ing two  of  these  authors  in  defence  of  the  Psalms 
•exclusively,  and  it  is  remarkable  that  neither  of 
them  pre'  single  text  of  Scripture  in  direct 

proof  of  their  theory.  We  concede  with  all  Chris- 
tian people,  that  the  Psalms  are  inspired  songs. 
a,  we  freely  admit  that  David,  who  was  the 
penman  "f  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  about  seventy  of 

lied  **  the  IWOet  Psalm- 
ist of  Israel."     Again  ;  that  Ezra,  some  fite  cen- 


56  NO  DIVINE    WARRANT    FOR   THE 

turies  later,  collected  the  Psalms  into  their  present 
volume  form  as  a  part  of  the  sacred  canon,  is  the 
common  belief.  And  finally,  that  the  Church 
(under  the  Jewish  dispensation,)  employed  with 
Divine  approval  these  songs  in  praise.  Thus  far 
all  is  harmony.  But  from  the  fact  that  God  gave 
to  his  Church  (at  a  late  period  of  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation) a  book  of  Psalms,  it  by  no  means  fol- 
lows that  it  should  be  now  used,  literally  and  ver- 
bally, to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  We  live  under 
the  gospel  which  has  "  brought  light  and  immor- 
tality to  light."  We  know  that  "the  law  was 
given  by  Moses ;  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus 
Christ."  And  we  require  very  clear  and  express 
testimony  of  Scripture  to  prove  that  the  New 
Testament  teachings  on  these  great  subjects  of 
"  grace,  truth,  life,  immortality,"  must  be  excluded 
from  our  songs  of  praise.  We  should  about  as 
soon  believe  that  they  are  to  be  excluded  from 
the  prayers  and  other  parts  of  public  and  private 
worship.  We  demand  a  "  thus  saith  the  Lord" 
for  so  extraordinary  a  theory. 

In  the  "  Letters  on  Psalmody,"  2  Chron.  29  :  30 
was  adduced  as  "the  nearest  approach"  to  any- 
thing like  direct  Scripture  authority  for  the  ex- 
clusive doctrine,  viz.,  "  Hezekiah  the  king  and 
the  princes  commanded  the  Levites  to  sing  praise 
unto  the  Lord  with  the  words  of  David  and  Asaph 


BOOK   OF    MAIMS    RXCLUBTTBI/r.  f>7 

the  seer."  But  the  reviewer  appears  to  be  anirry 
with  the  author  even  for  such  a  qualified  use  of 
this  text.     H  The  quotation/1  b  ~  does  not 

that  the  Church  is  restricted  by  Divine 
authority  to  the  use  of  the  book  of  ],salms  ;  nor 
do  we  employ  it  for  that  purpose*"  *  Of  course, 
therefore,  we  agree  that  this  text  fails  to  bring 
aid  to  the  reviewer's  exclusive  system.  But  the 
conclusion  arrived  at  in  the  "  Letters,"  from  an 
argument  under  three  separate  heads,  is  stated  thus : 
"These  acts  of  Ilezekiah  are  no  Divine  warrant 
for  the  book  of  Psalms  as  THE  system  of  praise- 
to  be  used  in  the  Church  of  our  day;  much  less  as 
of  exclusive  authority  for  that  purpose."  And 
among  the  reasons  for  this  conclusion  are  such  as 
these,  viz.,  in  verse  twenty-five  of  the  same  chapter, 
we  read,  k*  Ilezekiah  set  the  Levites  in  the  house  of 
the  Lord,  with  cymbals,  with  psalteries,  and  with 
harps,  according  to  the  commandment  of  l>avid,  and 
of  Gad,  the  k;!  \  and  Nathan  the  prophet  : 

fU  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  by  his 

*If  the  reviewer  will   look  into  the    Banker  of  (hi    I 
nant  for  December  18,  I860,  he  will  bo*  thai  S3  Caron 

3U  has  been  used    to    prove   the   exclurivt    use  of   the  hook  of 

!  A  con  ■  • 

.ent  ot'  these  Psalms  prohibit*  the  use  of  others. 
pointed  the  one  bandied  and  fifty  Psalms  to  be 
exclusively/  i:  ip.    In  proof  of  this  we  qu  I 

29  :  3".  think 

refer  to  li  Presslj  on  Psalmodj," 
and  consequently  he  falls  into  mittak* 


58  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT   FOR   THE 

prophets/'  Here  is  equal  inspired  authority  for 
choirs  and  instrumental  music,  called,  "  musical 

INSTRUMENTS  OF  GOD  " — "  INSTRUMENTS  OF  MUSIC 

of  the  Lord,  which  David  the  king  had  made  to 
praise  the  Lord/'  2  Chron.  7 : 6.  Here  the  Church 
was  divinely  commanded  to  use  "  cymbals,  psal- 
teries and  harps"  in  praising  God,  as  really  as  to 
sing  "  praise  with  the  words  of  David  and  Asaph." 

Again,  thirteen  years  afterward  Hezekiah  him- 
self composed  a  Psalm  for  the  house  of  the  Lord, 
and  gave  directions  for  the  singing  of  his  "  songs 
in  the  temple  all  the  days  of  his  life."  See  Isaiah, 
38 :  9-20.  Of.  course,  that  pious  prince  did  not 
regard  "the  words  of  David  and  Asaph"  as  the 
exclusive  system  of  praise  in  his  day.  To  this  and 
much  other  argument  in  the  "Letters,"  the  re- 
viewer wisely  maintains  "expressive  silence." 

The  reviewer  dwells  with  great  complacency  upon 
the  statement  "that  the  Church  of  God  (he  means 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation,)  praised  him  in 
the  use  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  and  therefore  with 
Divine  approbation."  *  But  did  not  the  "  Church 
use  with  Divine  approbation,  and  in  accordance 
with  Divine  appointment,"  the  song  of  Miriam 
at  the  Red  Sea ;  the  song  of  Moses  (Deut.  32) ; 
the  song  of  Deborah  and  Barak,  &c.  Of  course 
it  follows,  that  "  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  thev 
*  See  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  88. 


ROOK    OF    PSALMS    EXCLUSIVELY.  SB 

should  be  sung  "  to  the  end  of  time  I  So  the  Church 
reeeived  of  the  Lord  many  peculiar  usages  of  the 
Mosaic  law — such,  for  example,  as  the  regulation 
that  required  a  man  to  be  stoned  for  gathering 
sticks  on  the  Sabbath  day,  for  cursing  his  parents, 
&c.  All  these  were  of  "  Divine  appointment." 
Ergo,  they  are  binding  on  us  of  the  present  day! 
And  it  is  of  these  same  Levitical  "statutes"  that 
God  says,  "  Ye  shall  not  add  unto  the  word  which 
I  command  you,  neither  shall  ye  diminish  aught 
from  it."  Deut.  4  :  2.  Let  us  apply  here  the  re- 
viewer's argument,  viz.,  "  From  the  fact  that  God 
gave  to  his  Church  these  ancient  statutes  and  for- 
bid her  to  diminish  aught  from  them,  it  would  ap- 
pear to  be  the  Divine  will  that  they  should  be  used 
to  the  end  of  time."*  So  in  like  manner,  all  the 
rest  of  "the  law  and  the  prophets"  God  gave  to 

Church  for  public  instruction;  but  are  we, 
therefore,  to  use  nothing  else,  no  part  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  the  pulpit  ?  If  the  reviewer  had 
taken  a  little  pains  to  understand  the  book  he  pro- 

-  to  criticise,  he  would  have  saved  much  valu- 
able paper  and  ink  expended  in  proving  what  is 

*The  advent  of  our  Lord  and  his  fulfilling  the  law,  did 
away  only  those  typical  ordinances  which  were  u  but  tkadow* 
of  good  thuvjs  to  come  8c  I  ;■  rl  Mr.  Doddfl  In  his  book  on 
Psalmody,  p.  \(>8.  But  the  case*  of  the  stoning  for  gather- 
ing .-ticks  and  tot  cursing  ■  parent  were  not  of  this  -h.ulnwy 
sort.  Brgo,  liif-'-  awl  are  still  in  force  !  This  is  a  fair 
inference  from  the  premises  of  Dr.    P.   and   himi 


60  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT   FOR   THE 

not  denied,  viz.,  that  the  Church  should  employ 
these  songs  in  praise.  We  maintain  this  proposi- 
tion as  strenuously  as  he  can  do.  But  when  he 
builds  on  this  narrow  basis  his  literal  theory,  and 
styles  "Rouse's  paraphrase''  "  a  literal  version  " 
of  those  songs,  and  then  proceeds  to  denounce  the 
use  of  the  paraphrases  employed  by  Presbyterians 
as  no  better  than  "  strange  fire,"  &c,  when  offered 
before  the  Lord — we  venture  to  differ  with  him  ! 
It  is  abundantly  proved  in  "  Letters  on  Psalmody," 
that  such  texts  as  2  Chron.  29  :  30  do  not  serve 
the  reviewer's  purpose.  It  is  shown  that  not  only 
do  they  enjoin  upon  the  Church  the  use  of  instru- 
mental music  equally  with  the  use  of  the  seventy 
or  eighty  Psalms  which  were  composed  by  David^ 
and  Asaph,  but  leave  about  half  of  "  the  book" 
without  their  authority;  while  this  we  believe  to  be 
proved  beyond  controversy,  it  is  in  the  same  con- 
nection freely  and  frequently  admitted,  that  we 
Presbyterians  are  "far, from  designing  to  exclude 
the  book  of  Psalms  from  the  devotions  of  the 
Church."*  When  the  reviewer,  therefore,  shall 
write  another  volume  on  the  subject,  we  hope  he 
will  assume  as  granted,  that  we  "  have  Divine  ap- 
pointment for  the  use  of  the  songs  contained  in 
the  book  of  Psalms  in  celebrating  the  praise  of 
God."  The  author  of  the  "Letters"  never  had 
*  See  Letters  on  Psalmody,  p.  11,  and  many  other  passages. 


BOOK    Of    PSALMS    EXCLUSIVELY.  (Jl 

the  least  doubt  on  that  subject.    He  firmly  believes, 
as  before  Btated,  that  not  only  the  book  of  Psalms, 

but  the  whole  word  of  God  (of  course  he  includes 
'  the   Psalms),  is  of  use  for  this  end.      But  whether 
</t  of  using  the  Psalms,  in   "Rouse's  para- 
phrase,"  which  he  facetiously  calls  ua  literal  ver- 
sion  or  translation,"    be    the    Divinely  appointed 
and  inspired   mode — and  whether  the  paraphrase 
which   Presbyterians  use  be  little  better  than  the 
presumptuous  offering  to  the  Lord  of  "  the  flesh 
of  the  pig"  instead  of  "  the  kid,"  are  quite  other 
tions.     Let  Dr.  P.   try  his  strength  on  these 
points,  and  we  will  seriously  atten  1  to  his  argu- 
ment 

Our  first  difficulty^  then,  in  the  way  of  receiving 
the  exclusive  theory  of  Psalmody,  is  that  it  has  no 
if  Scripture  to  support  it.     It  is  at  best  mere- 
ly an  awkward  inference  from  premises  which  are 
>  narrow  to  support  the  conclusion.     On  the 
other  hand,  th<  the  Scrip- 

!  which  teach  the  directly  opposite  doctrine, 
either  directly  or  by  plain  and  obvious  inference, 
as  will  be  shown  hereafter. 

2.    A    9ec<md    difficulty    relates   to   the   assumed 
Divh,  lion  of  the  number  of  the  Psali 

Let  the   reviewer  tell  us,  if  he  can,  the 

[BE  person  who  was  appointed  by  God  to 

fix  the  number  of  the  I  it  just  one  hundred 


62  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT   FOR   THE 

and  fifty,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  both  inspi- 
red and  uninspired,  or  at  least  show  us  some  Divine 
authority  for  such  limitation.  This  is  a  serious 
matter,  especially  as  in  the  opinion  of  Dr.  P.  it 
involves  the  crime  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  who  were 
destroyed  for  encroaching  on  a  Divine  ordinance. 
Bring  us  your  authority,  not  for  placing  these  one 
hundred  and  fifty  Psalms  in  the  sacred  canon, 
but  the  Divine  oracle,  "a  thus  saith  the  Lord," 
establishing  these  one  hundred  and  fifty  songs,  in 
preference  and  to  the  exclusion  of  all  the  other 
forms  of  devotional  poetry  in  the  Scriptures  as 
the  only,  all-sufficient  and  inspired  Psalter  for  the 
Church  to  all  ages.  Here  the  reviewer's  case 
breaks  down  altogether.  , 

We  shall  not  bandy  words  with  the  reviewer 
in  regard  to  the  precise  meaning  of  the  apostle, 
when  in  Col.  3  :  16  he  exhorts  :  "  Let  the  word  of 
Christ  dwell  in  you  richly,  teaching  and  admon- 
ishing one  another  in  psalms,  and  hymns,  and 
spiritual  songs,"  &c.  If  there  were  no  other 
psalms,  hymns,  &c,  in  the  inspired  record,  and 
no  inspired  men  at  that  time  to  compose  them, 
the  inference  might  be  that  Paul  refers  to  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  Psalms,*   and  to  them  alone. 

*  The  celebrated  Ralph  Erskine,  the  father  of  the  Associ- 
ate Synod  of  Scotland,  affirms  that  Col.  3  :  10,  u  Let  the 
word  of  Christ  dwell  in  you  richly,  *  *  *  in  psalms,  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs,"  contains  a  Divine  precept  for  singing 


BOOK    ft]    PSALMS    EXCLUSIVELY.  88 

Eut  as  B  large  part  of  the  Scriptures,  particularly 
of  the  Old  Testament,  consists  of  devotional  poetry, 
of  "psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs;"  and 
one  ivhole  book,  "  Song  of  Solomon,"  is  entitled 
by  God  himself,  "the  song  of  songs,"  the  most 
excellent  of  songs — of  which  Scott  the  commen- 
tator >a\>.  "  NO  OTHER  POXM  IN  THE  WORLD  *  * 
i  adapted  to  excite  admiring,  adoring,  grateful 
love  to  our  God  and  Saviour;"  when  we  add  that 
the  term  humnos,  hymn,  is  never  found  in  the 
Greek  Septuagint  (which  the  apostle  used)  as  the 
distinctive  title  of  any  of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty 
Psalms,*  but  both  "song"jand  "hymn"  are  repeat-  , 
edly  employed  to  designate  other  parts  of  the  sa- 
cred writings,  as  for  example  Is.  42:10,  u  Sing 
unto  the  Lord  a  new  song1  (humnon),  and  in  Deut. 
the  poetical  address  of  Moses  in  chap.  32  is  three 
several  times  called  ode,  a  song — "  write  ye  this 
song"  &c.  In  view  of  facts  such  as  these,  and 
many  others  (for  which  we  must  refer  to  the  "Let- 
Solomon's  Song."  Letters  on  Psalmody,  p.  104.  We  shall 
refer  again  to  this  testimony,  especially  as  Dr.  P.  is  entirely 
silent  on  the  subject. 

♦The  Septuagint,  we  concede,  uses  the  dative  plural 
humnois,  in  several  of  the  titles,  as  in  Ps.  B7,  where  it  is  the 
translation  of  neginoth,  stringed  instruments.  In  Ps.  4  the 
Septuagint  translates  negmotk  by  AoJmeif,  Psalms.  Should 
Paul  when  he  exhorts  us  to  M  teach  and 
admonish  one  another  in  psalms  and  hymns,"  as  enjoin 
the  use  of  negia  .  <d  instruments  f     Thi  nly 

a  fair  inference  on  the  supposition    that  tin,-   apostle    had    in 
Greek  tit'.  3<  ptnagint 


66  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT   FOR    THE 

guilty  to  the  displeasure  of  Heaven  as  certainly 
as  it  did  the  presumptuous  sons  of  Aaron"  (Nadab 
and  Abihu).*  Verily,  this  reviewer's  notions  of 
"tha  sin  of  corrupting  the  worship  of  God" — 
"  offering  strange  fire" — are  adapted  to  provoke 
a  smile;  but  the  subject  is  too  serious  for  mirth. 
When  it  suits  a  special  purpose,  he  utterly  discards 
his  oft-repeated  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  "  Divine 
appointment,"  as  of  very  small  importance.  Then 
he  boldly  asserts  that  to  use  "  songs  of  praise" 
without  "divine  authority,"  should  make  "little 
difficulty."  And  is  this  what  he  means  by  the  obli- 
gations and  terrors  of  the  "second  commandment," 
which  forbids  "  the  worshiping  of  God  by  *  * 
*  *  any  way  not  appointed  in  his  Word?"  For 
himself,  it  seems,  the  want  of  Divine  authority  is 
a  "little  difficulty,"  and  "should  not  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  Church  " — but  for  Presbyterians,  the 
same  want  of  Divine  authority  exposes  them  to  the 
heavy  curse  of  breaking  "  the  second  command- 
ment," the  "sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,"  "offering 
strange  fire."  This  want  of  "  Divine  appointment" 
is  a  very  convenient  rod  to  hold  over  the  heads  of 
Presbyterians,  in  order  to  frighten  them  into  the 
Rouse  camp  ;  but  when  once  there,  they  find  it  is 
"a  little  difficulty,"  which  "ought  not  to  disturb 
the  peace  of  the  Church." 

*On  Psalmody,  p.  9. 


BOOK    OF    PSALMS    EXCLUSIVELY.  61 

The  oillating  spirit  and  absence  of  fixed 

principles,  appear  in  the  volume  entitled  "  True 
Psalmody."  One  page  has  it,  "the  book  of 
Psalms  in  a  literal  translation;"  another,  "die 
Psalms  of  Scripture  (all  Scripture),  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  unitupired  songs."  At  one  time  it  is  u  the 
of  Psalms  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others," 
both  inspired  and  uninspired  ;  but  again  the  ques- 
tion is  stated  thus  :  "Have  we  liberty  to  make 
and  sing  *  *  *  songs  other  than  those  of  the 
Bible?"  Amid  the  confusion  thus  created,  it  is 
isible  to  tell  at  what  precise  point  the  "True 
Psalmody"  fixes  the  "pig  and  kid"  crisis!  Wheth- 
er "Divine  authority"  terminates  with  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  Psalms,  or  includes  all  the  songs 
of  the  Bible. 

4.  Another  very  grave  objection  to  the  logical 
ion  of  the  reviewer  is,  that  his  doctrine  draws 
into  lerions  question  the  soundness  of  his  ortho- 
doxy on  the  subject  of  Inspiration.      "  The  great 

tion,"    he   s-iys,    "on    which    the    contro 
turns,  is — have  we  Divine  appointment  in  favor  of 
the   use    of  the   devotional  compositions  of  unin- 
I  men  in  the  worship  of  God*"     We  have  just 
j. is  own   statements,  that  lie  regards 
it  of  little  or  no  importance  whether  we  have  ''Di- 
or  not,  if  we   ring   ik  other    - 
of  the  Bible'1  the  one  hundred  and  fifty 


68  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT    FOR   THE 

Psalms.  But  for  "the  compositions  of  unin- 
spired men" — he  is  very  zealous  in  asserting  the 
absolute  necessity  of  "Divine  authority  "  for  them! 
And  yet  the  reviewer  has  been  singing  exclusively 
during  a  long  life — what?  A  system  of  Psalmody 
entitled  by  the  mother  Church  of  Scotland  when  she 
adopted  it,  "Rouse's  paraphrase  of  the  Psalms/' 
but  not  once  does  she  call  it  a  version.  Of  course 
he  regards  what  the  Church  of  Scotland  calls 
"  Rouse'-s  Psalms,"  as  inspired  compositions!  It 
follows  that,  to  be  consistent,  he  must  think  and 
speak  of  Rouse  as  an  inspired  paraphrase  !  But 
was  ever  before  any  person  of  sober  judgment 
found  using  such  a  collocation  of  terms  ? 

When  Ralph  Erskine  prepared  what  he  calls  his 
"paraphrase  of  the  Song  of  Solomon,"  in  obedi- 
ence, as  he  tells  us,  to  the  "Divine  precept" 
in  Col.  3  :  16  and  Eph.  5 :  18,  19,  "  to  sing  psalms, 
hymns,  and  spiritual  songs,"  did  he  profess  to 
make  "an  inspired  composition?"  Take  a  single 
specimen,  chap.  1:4:"  Draw  me;  we  will  run  after 
thee  " — a  line  of  seven  words  expanded  into  twelve 
lines.  This  is  what  Erskine,  a  father  of  the  Se- 
cession Church  of  Scotland,  meant  by  "  a  para- 
phrase," and  this  explains  what  the  mother  Church 
meant  when  twenty  times  in  her  Adopting  Acts, 
she  speaks  of  "Rouse's  paraphrase."  The  de- 
monstrative proof  that  the  noble  old  martyr  Church 


BOOK    01    P0ALM8    EXCLUSIVELY. 

had   -  tough  to   know  the   meaning  of  the 

words,  is  found  in  the  work  itself.  "  Rouse's 
Psalms"  are  no  "literal  version" — no  " version'' 
at  all — no  w  inspired  composition/1     They  are  (at 

in  large  part,)  "the  devotional  compositions 
of  uninspired  men !"  i:  Yet  Dr.  P.  says,  "  we  have 
no  Divine  authority  to  sing  such  compositions." 
Of  course  he  has  sung  Rouse  all  his  life  without 
Divine  authority  ! 

And  now  what  sort  of  idea  of  Inspiration  must 
Dr.  Pi  entertain,  who  claims  that  he  sings  a  an  in- 
spired Psalmody" — the  identical  "  songs  of  the 
Holy  Ghost':"  What  measure  of  sense  is  there  in 
the  terms,  an  inspired  paraphrase  ?  He  might  as 
well  speak  of  his  own  u  inspired  sermons,"  or  u  in- 
spired extempore  prayers. "  Truly,  this  is  a  strange 
position  for  an  author  who  is  so  zealous  for  the 
honor  of  Inspiration  !  If  it  be  so  great  a  crime 
to  sing  u  evangelical  hymns,"  whole  Injmns  of  un- 
inspired men,  is  there  no  Bin  in  singing  part*  of 
such  hymns?  Yet  he  uses,  without  the  least 
u  compunctious  fishings,"  a  *k  paraphrase  "  of  the 
Psalms,  patched  with  hundreds  of  thoughts,  and 
eetitimeftts,  and  explications,  of  Rouse  and  other 
u uninspired  men!"  This  is  abundantly  proved 
in  the  first  five  "Letters  on  Psalmody/1     If  the 

♦Composed  by  Rouse  and  amended  by  the  General  As- 
sembly. 


70  NO    DIVINE    WARRANT    FOR    THE 

use  in  praise  of  a  whole  "  uninspired  hymn  "  be  so 
grievous  a  crime,  why  not  Rouse's  parts  of  hymns? 
Was  Rouse  inspired  ?  When  this  reviewer  gives 
up  singing  the  "  human  composure  "  of  Rouse,  it 
will  be  time  enough  to  attend  to  his  so-called  prin- 
ciple of  "inspired  Psalmody.''  In  the  meantime 
we  shall  continue  to  think  that  all  the  human 
patchwork  of  Rouse  was  never  "  composed  in 
heaven !" 

If  anything  further  were  needed  to  fix  upon  the 
reviewer's  sentiments  the  charge  of  a  tendency  to 
loose  views  of  Inspiration,  we  find  it  in  his  prac- 
tice of  explaining  "  Rouse's  paraphrase."  With- 
out such  an  explanation  of  the  Psalms,  we  learn 
from  Prof.  Patterson,  of  Westminster  College,  "the 
people  KNOW  nothing  of  their  spiritual  worth," 
"  and  these  well-springs  of  the  God  of  Israel  are 
closed  and  sealed."  In  the  vocabulary  of  the 
reviewer,  therefore,  to  sing  "inspired  composi- 
tions" consists,  1.  In  using  a  "paraphrase"  of 
such  compositions.  2.  In  "  explaining  "  the  para- 
phrase, so  that  the  congregation  can  utter  the 
words  with  the  sense  which-  the  minister  puts  upon 
them,  whether  he  be  an  Arian  of  Ulster,  or  Dr.  P. 
of  Allegheny !  According  to  the  reviewer,  the 
Ulster  Arians  who  use  Rouse  explained  by  them- 
selves, praise  God  in  "a  Divine  Psalmody,"  "in- 
spired compositions,"  just  as  really  as  he  himself. 


BOOK    OF    PSALMS    EXCLUSIVELY.  71 

In  such  0*868,  88  the  worship  consists  in  the  senti- 
ment, not  the  words,  most  persona  will  agree  with 

Dr.  Ralston,  that  such  compositions  are  "Press- 
ly's  Psalms  "and  "Arian  Psalms" — just  as  his 
expositions  of  other  texts  are  really  u  Pressly's 
Sermons."  Yet  he  claims  to  sing  only  "  the  com- 
positions of  inspired  men  !"  And  he  further  main- 
tains that  even  Arians  (and  the  same  principle 
applies  to  Jews  also),  who  regard  Christ  as  an 
exalted  creature,  or  a  mere  man,  u  as  a  matter  of 
course  sing  the  truth,"  provided  they  sing  the 
Words  of  the  Psalms,  though  with  an  Arian  or 
Jewish  explanation  and  understanding  of  them  ! 
By  singing  the  words  that  contain  the  truth  he 
affirms  that  they  sing  the  very  truth  itself !  But 
the  lansnia^e  is  but  Bound — the  truth  is  the  Divine 
sentiment,  the  thought — the  worship  is  the  utter- 
ance, not  of  words,  but  the  expression  of  the  sen- 
timent of  the  heart.  Yet  so  enamored  is  this 
reviewer  with  the  mere  forms  of  Rouse's  Psalms, 
that  he  ventures  to  affirm  that  an  uArian,"  who 
does  not  believe  in  a  Divine  Saviour  at  all,  but  in  a 
mere  creature,  if  he  sing  the  Psalms,  uwill  praise 
Cxod  with  s.iitiments  suitable  and  acceptable  to 
him,  if  he  praises  him  with  a  suitable  frame  of 
mind,  if  he  make  melody  in  his  heart  to  the  Lord.'! 
And  this  from  a  man  who  professes  to  honor  the 

Sox  :      in;  honors  the  Father!  What 


72  NO    DIVINE    WARRANT   FOR   THE 

sort  of  "melody  in  the  heart"  does  he  imagine  an 
Arian  or  Jew  is  capable  of  making  to  Christ? 
What  sort  of  "  sentiments  acceptable  "  to  Him  can 
he  offer  who  regards  him  as  a  mere  creature,  or 
who  curses  him  in  his  heart  ?  If  there  is  no  "  loose 
theology"  here,  where  can  it  be  found? 

The  case  referred  to  in  the  "  Letters,"  is  that  of 
an  Ulster  Arian,  who  uses  Rouse,  and  who  explains 
the  second  Psalm,  for  example,  and  tells  the  peo- 
ple, "  God's  only  Son,"  his  "Anointed,"  is  a  mere 
creature — and  the  congregation  receive  and  believe 
it  and  sing  accordingly.  They  sing  the  words 
of  truth  with  an  Arian  meaning — with  a  false  sen- 
timent in  the  heart.  Yet  Dr.  P.  says,  "  they  sing 
the  truth!"  Truly,  his  notions  of  an  "inspired 
Psalmody"  appear  to  lie  in  the  shell — to  go  no 
deeper  than  the  outward  forms.  It  must  be  a  bad 
cause  which  forces  its  advocate  into  such  mischiev- 
ous conclusions.  Give  us  the  Psalms  as  expounded 
by  the  collective  wisdom  of  the  Church,  rather 
than  a  "  paraphrase  "  explained  by  a  minister  who 
may  be  secretly  an  ungodly  person,  or  a  heretic 
in  doctrine. 

5.  A  fifth  serious  obstacle  to  the  adoption  of 
the  reviewer's  exclusive  theory  is,  that  its  chief 
advocates  have  no  common  ground,  no  agreement 
as  to  what  is  essential  to  "  an  inspired  Psalmody." 
One  leading  author  advocates  "a  literal  and  true 


BOOK    OF    PSALMS    KXrnrSIY KLY.  73 

ion  as  of  Divine  appointment."     With  this  the 
reviewer  harmonizes.    Dr.  Cooper,  of  Philadelphia, 

on  the  contrary,  Bays,  "The  only  question  is,  has 
the  translator  observed  the  inspired  order  and  ar- 
rangement of  the  original,  and  is  the  idea  fairly  and 
fully  brought  out."     Bat  this  abandons  entirely  the 

:  ine  of  "•  literal  and  true  version."      On  Dr. 

theory,  a  paraphrase  which  observes  "the  in- 
spired order  and  arrangement,"  and  brings  out  the 
idea,  is  aan  inspired  Psalmody."  This  also  con- 
demns Rouse,  who  often  violates  the  u  inspired 
order."  A  third  author  rejects  in  toto  all  attempts 
at  "rhyming  Psalmody"  as  a  virtual  repudiation 
of  "  the  pure  word  of  God."  "All  supporters  of 
rhyming  Psalmody, *  he  says,  "are  disqualified 
for  pleading  the  cause  of  an  inspired  Psalmody  " 
"We  have  no  authority,"  he  adds,  "for  making 
or  singing  rhyming  Psalms."  But  perhaps  the 
easiest  and  shortest  method  of  reconciling  these 
conflicting  views  of  "  inspiration,"  is  that  suggested 
by  R<  v.  Mr.  Gordon.  He  takes  the  ground  that 
in  using  the  Psalms,  "it  is  not  necessaiyto  under- 
stand what  we  sing  in  that  book."  From  this  it 
U  ■  fair  inference,  that  if  the  original  Hebrew  text 
were  pat  in  English  letters,  we  should  then  have 
a  perfect  system  of  praise — containing  an  "inspi- 
red Psalmody!"  We  commend  this  method  of 
untying  the  dordian  fatal  to  the  reviewer's  atten- 
7 


74  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT    FOR    THE 

tion  as  creating  an  infallible  certainty  of  "  singing 
the  truth." 

6.  A  sixth  formidable  obstacle  to  the  general 
adoption  of  an  exclusive  literal  version  of  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  Psalms,  is  that  the  theory  is  an 
" innovation, "  a  discovery  of  modern  times — an 
abandonment  of  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the 
mother  Churches  of  Scotland,  in  the  days  of  their 
greatest  prosperity  and  power. 

It  is  a  curious  and  suggestive  fact  that  this 
point,  though  largely  elaborated  in  the  "  Letters 
on  Psalmody,"  is  carefully  eschewed  by  this  re- 
viewer; not  a  syllable  have  we  on  so  important  a 
topic !  In  Dr.  P's.  book,*  however,  we  find  some 
statements  in  relation  to  the  testimony  of  history 
on  the  subject.  "In  the  reign  of  Edward  VI," 
he  tells  us,  "the  version  of  Sternhold  and  Hop- 
kins was  introduced."  But  the  "Letters  on 
Psalmody"  prove  by  large  quotations,  beyond  th 
shadow  of  a  doubt,  that  Sternhold  and  Hopkins 
made  no  "  version  "  (or  translation)  at  all,  but  quite 
a  broad  paraphrase,  at  least,  in  many  of  the  Psalms. 
In  addition  it  is  shown  by  numerous  extracts,  that 
that  ancient  paraphrase  adopts  Dr.  Watts'  princi- 
ples, viz.,  "  to  give  'a  gospel  turn'  to  David  on  all 
suitable  occasions."  We  have  room  for  only  a 
couple  of  examples: 

-"On  Psalmody,  p.  116,  117. 


BOOK    OF    PSALMS    IXCLUBIVRLT. 

Bll  LD  in  IIorK  '  Prose  Vepsion. 

If  onee  his  wrath  W  \  his  wrath  is  k i n ■  i '. • 

ild  kindle  in  a  little, 

all  they    t. 

their  trust  In  him. 
The  kings  and  rulen  rt    of  the   earl 

themselYet  end  the  mien 

*uheLordan<  -  against    the 

Which  he  am  Iti.rJ  and  against  hifl  enoin 

These  are  from  tlie  2d  Psalm.  The  following 
is  from  Pa  125:1, 

wh<>  do  put  their  eonfl  I 
■  r  God  only, 
• 
In  all  their  need  and  m  - 
The>r  faith  U  sure  still  to  erutvre, 
Groxr  ft  the  corner- 

tndeth  still, 
Mast  like  to  the  mount  8 

Here  it  will  be  seen,  three  lines  of  the  prose 
version  [four  in  House)  are  expanded  into  eight 
in  Sternhold,  as  shown  by  the  italics.  This  is  the 
sort  of  poetry  the  reviewer  ventures  to  call  a  "ver- 
sion !"  Yet  he  says,  "  a  version  is  a  translation  !" 
Even    Dr.   Beveridge    admits   that    Sternhold    is 

/  in  some  instances  as  exact  as  Rouse,"  while 
in  others,  he  says,  it  is  u  not  anything  like  a  ver- 
sion.''* The  attention  of  the  reader  is  particu- 
larly requested  to  the  "gospel  turns"  in  these  paa- 

— which  are  quite  an  abomination  in  the 
of  the  reviewer — at  least  when  introduced  by  Dr. 
Watts  and  Presbyterians  !     A-  to  the  two  doxolc- 
I  to  the  T.r>th  and  125th  Psalm,  by 

ihold  and   Hopkiu ihey  are  mere   "  human 

*  Eva  ;>osi(ory,  April,   1851. 


76  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT   FOR    THE 

compositions,"  and  of  course  "  serious  corruptions" 
of  Divine  worship !  We  have  room  only  for  the 
shorter  : 

To  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 

All  glory  be  therefore; 
As  in  beginning  was,  is  now, 

And  shall  be  evermore. 

The  other  consists  of  eight  lines.  These  are 
queer  illustrations  of  what  Dr.  P.  is  pleased  to  call 
"a  version  or  translation  !"  It  was  about  a  cen- 
tury before  the  Church  of  Scotland  adopted  Stern- 
hold  and  Hopkins  that  the  martyr  Wishart,  the 
friend  and  preceptor  of  John  Knox,  on  the  eve 
cf  going  to  the  stake,  sung  the  51st  Psalm,  ex- 
panding the  fifty-three  lines  of  our  Bibles  into 
one  hundred  and  forty.     Here  is  a  specimen : 

Prose  Version.  Wishart's  Hymn. 

Thon  delightest  not  in  burnt        Burnt  sacrifice  is  no  delight 
offerings.  Unto  thy  majestie, 

'     Thou  carest  not  of  it  one  mite 
For  sin  to  satisfy, 
For  only  Christ  did  make  us  quit 

Of  all  enormitie. 
To  thy  mercy  will  I  go. 

These  examples  must  suffice  at  present,  to  prove 
what  sort  of  Psalmody  Scotland's  martyrs,  reform- 
ers and  earliest  Churches  regarded  as  of  "  Divine 
authority."  Whether  it  gives  more  countenance 
to  Dr.  P's.  "  true  and  literal  version"  theory,  or 
to  ours,  let  common  sense  decide.  One  thing  it 
proves  most  clearly — that  the  exclusive  literal 
theory  had  no  existence  at  that  early  period. 


-ALMS    EXCLUSIVELY.  »  1 

After  using  the  so-called  "  version"  of  Stern- 
hold  and  Hopkins  for  M  about  a  century, M  Dr.  P. 
tells  us,  **  the  version  by  Francis  Rouse  was  adop- 
ted." This  was  in  1649.  "The  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Church  of  Sctotland,"  he  adds,  "  intro- 
duced Rouse  as  bciii£  'more  agreeable  to  the  ori- 
ginal  text  than  any  version  heretofore  prepared.'  " 
k*Tlils  VERSION,"  he  continues,  "18  A  TRANSLA- 
TION of  the  songs  of  inspiration."  But  Dr.  P. 
forgets  to  inform  his  readers,  either  in  his  book  or 
in  his  review,  that  in  the  act  adopting  it,  the  Seot- 
tish  General  Assembly  never  once  called  it  a  ver- 
sion or  translation,  but  uniformly  "  a  paraphrase," 
11  Rouse's  paraphrase,"  &c.  This  paraphrase,  Dr. 
P.  goes  on  to  inform  us,  "  is  still  retained  in  the 
Church,  because  as  a  true  a?id  literal  translation 
of  the  original,  it  is  decidedly  superior  to  any 
other  in  the  English  language!"  Yes,  these 
are  his  precise  words.*  Rouse's  paraphrase  as  "a 
true  and  literal  translation,  is  decidedly  superior" 
to  the  prose  version  in  our  Bibles — which  "  is  in 
the  English  language  !"  If  Dr.  P.  had  said  "  de- 
cidedly  more  exact  and  literal91  than  any  other 
metrical  paraphrase,  something  might  be  alleged 
in  his  defence,  but  his  actual  statement  is  mon- 
strous. Does  he  really  believe  that  such  men  as 
Gillespie,  Henderson,  Rutherford,  and  others, 
tmodj,  p.  117,  second  edition. 


78  NO    DIVINE    WARRANT   FOR   THE 

"men  skilled  in  Hebrew  learning,"  as  he  admits, 
adopted  such  poetry  as  the  following  as  "a  true 
and  literal  translation:" 

Prcse  Version.  Rouse. 

I  stretch  forth  my  hands  unto        Lo,  I  do  stretch  my  hands, 
thee.  Ps.  143 : 6.  To  thee,  my  help  alone ; 

For  thou  well  understands 
All  my  complaint  and  moan. 

Or  this: 

Prose  Version.  Rouse. 

To  him  that   smote  Egypt  in        To  him  that  Egypt  smote, 

their  first  born.  Ps.  136 :  10.  Who  did  his  message  scorn  ; 

And  in  his  anger  hot, 

Did  kill  all  their  first  born. 

Dr.  P.  goes  on  to  tell  us  that,  "if  the  prose 
version  be  the  word  of  God,  the  mere  English  read- 
er may  satisfy  himself  that  the  metrical  version 
(Rouse's)  possesses  substantially  the  same  charac- 
ter," viz.,  that  "  it  is  a  true  and  literal  translation." 
Is  not  this  wonderful  ?  If  the  reviewer  can  per- 
suade himself,  or  any  other  person  familiar  with 
the  subject,  that  those  just  quoted,  and  several 
hundred  other  paraphrastic  forms  of  speech,  were 
admitted  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scot- 
land, as  "a  true  and  literal  translation;"  or  that 
"Rouse's  paraphrase"  is  "decidedly  superior"  to 
our  prose  version  as  "  a  true  and  literal  transla- 
tion"— when  the  reviewer  shall  perform  these  logi- 
cal wonders,  we  will  believe  that  he  can  prove 
white  to  be  black  and  black  to  be  white,  at  his 
pleasure. 

But  what  has  the  reviewer  to  say  in  reply  and 


%  BOOK    OF    PSALMS    EXCLUSIVELY.  79 

in  explanation  of  all  these  and  hundreds  of  other 
facts,  so  fatal  to  his  "literal"  theory?  Simply 
this:  ik  Like  the  prose  translation,  our  poetical 
translation  of  the  Psalms  is  the  work  of  man,  and 
in  some  respects  it  might  be  amended."  "No  one 
pretends,"  he  adds,  *?  that  this  version  (Rouse)  is 
perfect !"  "  We  plead  for  the  use  of  the  songs  of 
inspiration/'  continues  the  reviewer.  No  doubt 
of  it — but  at  the  same  time  you  sing  "Rouse's 
paraphrase,"  with  all  its  sins  of  "  human  compo- 
sition" on  its  head.  Yon  plead  for  what  you  say 
is  right ;  and  at  the  same  time  practice  what  you 
denounce  as  profane  and  impious  ! 

The  reviewer's  position  is  analogous  to  that  of 
the  preacher  who  ascends  the  pulpit  to  preach 
against  idolatry,  and  as  he  mounts  the  steps  kneels 
before  a  huge  idol ;  or  to  the  conduct  of  him  who 
vehemently  declaims  against  intemperance,  while 
himself  fuddled  with  drink  !  We  also  "plead  for 
the  use  of  the  songs  of  inspiration" — but  we  have 
this  advantage  over  the  reviewer — our  practice 
and  our  profession  are  in  harmony,  not  in  violent 
contrast 

The  reviewer  pleads  for  one  thing,  and  employs 
the  opposite.  Presbyterians,  on  the  contrary, 
"  plead  for  the  use  of  the  '  songs  of  inspiration,'  " 
JtlSt  as  inspired  apostles  used  them.  For  example, 
TIILILE    IS   ROT  A  SOLITARY  DTSTAHC1  IX    TBI    N«W 


80  no  divine  warrant  for  the 

Testament  of  the  singing  of  a  Psalm  of  Da- 
vid in  A  "  literal"  form.  On  the  contrary,  the 
apostles  used  the  book  of  Psalms  in  quite  a  differ- 
ent mode  in  the  only  two  cases  in  which  they  em- 
ployed them  in  social  praise.  One  of  these  is 
Luke  19  :  38.  The  disciples  took  part  of  a  verse 
from  Ps.  118,  but  sung  it  with  alterations  adapted 
to  their  circumstances.  The  second  case  is  in  Acts 
4  :  24.  The  beginning  of  the  second  Psalm  is  sung 
by  Peter,  John,  and  their  company — then  an  ad- 
dition, in  the  beginning — then  a  narrative  of  what 
David  spoke — then  an  application  to  Herod,  Pon- 
tius Pilate,  &c. — then  an  enlargement  by  consider- 
ing the  hand  of  God  in  the  whole,  and  finally  the 
song  concludes  with  desires  suited  to  their  circum- 
stances. This  is  an  inspired  pattern  for  making 
New  Testament  Psalms.  It  groups  together  parts 
of  the  Psalms  along  with  other  inspired  matter,  just 
as  Dr.  Watts  and  Presbyterians  do.  These  are 
examples  of  "  gospel  turns"  earlier  than  even  those 
of  "  Sternhold  and  Hopkins' '  and  the  martyrs  and 
Reformers  of  the  Scottish  Church.  Even  if  Rouse 
were  "a  true  and  literal  translation,"  it  could  not 
stand  against  these  examples  of  inspired  men.  We 
fix  our  foot  firmly  and  unhesitatingly  upon  this 
express  "  Divine  appointment."  On  such  author- 
ity as  this  we  hold  up  the  reviewer's  "literal" 
theory  as  a  mere  modern  invention,  an  innovation 
upon  ( both  inspired  and  uninspired  authority. 


BOOK  OF  PSALMS  EXCLUSIVELY.       81 

Nor  is  the  evidence  of  this  Bpirtt  of  innovation 
on  the  pari  of  the  reviewer  less  clear  in  regard  to 

the  use  of  " other  songs"  than  those  of  the  book 
of  Psalms.  Besides  the  proof  already  adduced, 
that  from  the  days  of  AVishart,  and  Sternhold  and 
Hopkins,  the  Church  of  Scotland  never  adopted 
the  "literal"  theory — as  early  as  1047  action  was 
taken  to  add  to  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms 
"  other  songs  of  Scripture"  for  purposes  of  praise. 
In  1701  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland  recommended  those  versified  by  Patrick 
Symp&OB,  u  to  be  used  in  private  families,  in  order 
epare  them  for  the  public  use  of  the  Church." 
So  also  in  1747  Ralph  Erskine  was  ordered  by 
his  Presbytery  (the  Burgher)  "to  verbify  the  other 
Scripture  songs" — and  as  his  further  authority  he 
quotes  the  acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  August  28, 1647,  as  enjoining 

UTM  TURNING  OF  ALL  THE  REST  OF  THE  SCRIP- 
TURE BONOS  INTO  METRE  AS  THE  PSALMS  01  DaVID 
ARE,   AND  FOR  THE  SAME    PUBLIC  USE" — and    this, 

he  adds,  uim  one  of  the  most  noted  periods  of 
Reformation."     For   much  other    information   on 
e  must  refer  to  the  "  Letters  "  them- 
Whether  the  venerable   Church  of  Scot- 
land, and  the  jJurgher  or  Seceder  Presbytery  at  a 
later  period,  were  guilty  in  all  this  matter   uof 
iiljf  corrupting  the  ordinance  of  God" — or 


O'J,  NO    DIVINE    WARRANT    FOR    TIIE 

whether  the  reviewer  is  not  chargeable  with  inno- 
vation upon  established  Scriptural  usage,  let  the 
serious  reader  decide.  Dr.  P.  was  wise  to  pass  all 
these  by  in  profound  silence. 

If  any  further  testimony  were  needed,  we  would 
cite  the  modern  example  of  the  Free  and  Estab- 
lished Churches  of  Scotland — the  hymn  book*  of 
"  the  United  Presbyterian  Church"  of  the  same 
country — and  the  further  fact  that  the  only  body 
of  Presbyterians  in  Scotland  who  adopt  the  ex- 
clusive theory,  is  that  of  the  Covenanters,  consist- 
ing of  perhaps  less  than  fifty  churches,  and  even 
these  do  not  all  adopt  the  exclusive  views.  So 
that  the  proportion  against  exclusivism  is  near 
three  thousand  to  fifty.  And  a  large  proportion 
of  their  hymns,  be  it  remembered,  make  no  pre- 
tensions to  be  "inspired  compositions"  in  the  re- 
viewer's sense  of  the  terms,  but  are  mere  "  human 
effusions."  The  advocates  of  the  exclusive  doctrine 
are  therefore  clearly  "the  innovators. "f 

*  This  hymn  book  contains  468  pieces,  a  large  part  of 
them  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Watts ;  besides  23  doxologies. 

f  We  invite  the  attention  of  that  large  part  of  the  u  United 
Presbyterian  Church  "  who  were  formerly  members  of  the 
"  Associate  Synod  of  North  Amerioa,"  to  the  following  from 
"the  Testimony  of  the  Associate  Church  in  Scotland,"  isr 
sued  in  1804.     They  say  : 

1.  "That  the  Psalms  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms, 
and  other  Scripture  tongs,  were  given  by  Divine  Inspiration 
to  be  used  in  the  ordinance  of  praise  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment." 


WOK   01    PSALMS   E.xci.rsiVKLY.  83 

7.  A  uoenth  insuperable  objection  to  the  theory 

of  "the    book   of    Psalms    exclusively,"    is    : 
upon  the  (Occasional  glimpses  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
:ven  us  of  the  nature  of  the  worship  of  heaven. 

Thus,  when  Isaiah  "saw  the  Lord  sitting  upon 
a  throne  high  and  lifted  up,"  and  heard  the  Se- 
raphim offering  their  praiees,  what  did  they  e 
A  Psalm  of  David!  No,  "Holy,  holy,  holy  is 
the  Lord  of  hosts:  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his 
glory."   chap.  G  :  2,  3. 

Again  :  When  "the  beloved  disciple"  received 
those  inspired  visions  in  the  isle  of  Patmos,  he  saw 
the  Lord  Jesus  seated  "  on  a  throne  in  heaven," 
and  heard  the  songs  of  its  blessed  inhabitants. 
Were  they  Psalms  of  David  ?  Hear  them  :  u  Wor- 
thy is  the  Lamb  that  was  slaix,"  fcc.  &c.  &c. 
Scott,  that  very  judicious  and  pious  commen- 
tator, says,  u  though  heaven  is  the  scene  of  these 
visions,  *  *  *  the  ntaU  of  the  Church  on 
earth  is  particularly  adverted  fco."  •*  They  had 
continual  reference  to  the  temple  and  its  worship.'1 
Such  are  the  "serious  corruptions  of  a  Divine  ordi- 
nance "  which  are  represented  as  used  in  heaven, 
or   "  in  the  New  Testament  Church  adoring  Christ 

2.   •  T:  %i  thOM   Psalms  and  songs  are  of  the   same  Divine 
authority   tinder   the    N  >ll  as 

others  contained  in  (he   Mw    Testament,   may  lie    BUBg   10   the 
ordinance  of  praise."     Yet  I>r.  Presi 
so  authority  to  sing  these  New  Testament  songs. 


84  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT    FOR    THE 

as  actually  come."  Such  is  the  "  new  song  (chap. 
5 :  9)  in  respect  of  the  occasion  and  composition" 
which  is  thought  worthy  of  Seraphim  and  glorified 
spirits  of  the  just — and  which  the  Spirit  of  Pro- 
phecy indicates  as  suitable  for  the  Church  under 
the  Christian  dispensation.  Yet  our  reviewer  can 
think  of  no  better  designation  for  such  worship,  if 
offered  on  earth,  than  ""sacrificing  a  pig  instead 
of  a  kid"  For  other  examples,  see  Rev.  19  : 1,  7. 
8.  We  object  to  the  exclusive  doctrine,  because, 
when  rigidly  carried  out,  it  breaks  the  harmony 
of  the  ordinance  of  praise  with  the  inspired  char- 
acteristics of  the  other  parts  of  worship.  All 
Christians  agree  that  the  New  Testament,  especi- 
ally the  writings  of  Paul,  form  a  perfect  and  in- 
fallible standard  at  least  for  prayer  and  preach- 
ing the  gospel.  But  how  constantly  is  the  atten- 
tion of  all  worshipers  turned  to  the  cross  !  How 
does  Paul  love  to  dwell  upon  that  dear  name  which 
is  above  every  name — to  place  the  crown  upon  the 
head  of  his  Saviour  !  Take  a  single  example,  one 
out  of  many  :  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  that 
name  in  its  various  forms,  including  Lord,  Head, 
Master,  Beloved,  occurs  sixty-three  times  in  one 
hundred  and  fifty-five  verses.  But  the  peculiar 
name  Jesus,  given  by  special  revelation,  is  not 
found    in   the  Psalms  —  the    term    Saviour    only 


BOOI    Of    PSALMS  -IVKLY. 

once,*  and  then,  pi  rring  to  the 

I  the  name  C 
.  an&inU  I  :.  to 

the   Messiah.     Yet  the 
between  three  and  four 

the  Bphesians  and  Phi- 
Upptana  together.     Can  this  be  the  only  way  to 

or  our  adorable  Redeemer  in  the  ordinano 

praise!     The  same  reasoning  applies  to  the  third 

person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity — the  Psalms  mention 

the  Holy  Spirit  not  more  than  five  or  sir  times. 

D   that    hook  be  the  .true  and  only  Psalmody 

under  what  is  emphatically  and  distinctively  called 

11  The  i  int."    This  reasoning 

.rhened  by  the  fact,  that  the  literal 

•  of  certain  parts  of   "the  book  of   Psalms" 

.  leads  to  the  strange  result  that  congr<  and 

.    individuals  offer  i>rajjers  in  song  which  no  one  ever 

thinks  of  using  without  it. 

For  example,  Pa.  59,  where  David  i<  speaking 
of  his  political  enemies  as  the  king  of  Israel  and 
the  protector  of  the  Church  : 

_-  !'-t  thou  them  roturn, 
Making  ^r<-.tt  ooise  and  soundi 
Lik-  Ren  walk 

and. 

And  this  : 

*  In  i  |j  thus  in  tbe  pr<  .  how- 

them,  thai 

8 


86  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT   FOR   THE 

Do  to  them  as  to  Midian ; 

Jabin  and  Kison  strand; 
And  SisTa;  which  at  Endor  fell, 

As  dung  to  fat  the  land. 

These  and  many  other  specimens  we  suppose 
the  reviewer  never  uses  in  public  prayer.  But  he 
teaches  the  people  that  they  are  inspired  patterns 
of  prayer,  if  only  used  with  a  tune  ! 

9.  A  ninth,  and  one  of  the  most  grave  objec- 
tions to  the  exclusive  theory,  is  that  it  comes  short 
of  the  New  Testament  pattern  in  some  of  the  fun- 
damental doctrines  of  the  gospel.  The  reviewer 
Avill  not  affirm  that  the  great  distinctive  truth, 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  .the  true,  the  long 
promised  and  looked  for  Messiah,  is  any- 
where taught  in  the  Psalms.  This  was  the  chief 
stumbling  block  of  the  Jews,  and  for  teaching  it 
Christ  and  his  followers  were  bitterly  persecuted.* 
"Hereby  know  we  the  Spirit  of  God,"  says  the 
beloved  disciple  ;  "every  spirit  that  confesseth  not 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of 
God."  And  a  denial  or  want  of  confession  of  this 
doctrine,  is  declared  to  be  a  mark  of  "  the  many 
deceivers  who  have  entered  into  the  world."  But 
so  far  as  the  distinct  confession  of  this  fundamental 
principle  of  Christianity  is  concerned,  the  review- 
er might  as  well  be  a  Jew,  to  the  extent  that  his 
public  praise  (when  the  Psalm  is  not  explained) 

*  Itseerrs  to  have  become  a  common  proverb,  "Can  any 
good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth  ?" 


BOOK   OF   PBALM8   EXCLUSIVELY. 

Even  the  malignant  Jew 

can  unite  with  him  cordially  thus  far!  Can  this 
1  e  a  full  atld  scriptural  obedience  to  the  command, 
"that  all  men  should  honor  THE  Sox  even  as 
they  honor  the  Father?"     It  thus  appears  that  in 

'rtJ/s  of  the  puhlic  worship  conducted  by  Dr. 
P.  (the  first  Psaltn  only  of  the  morning  Sabbath 
.services  being  explained))  his  trumpet  gives  so 
uncertain  a  sound,  his  testimony  for  the  great  vital 
truth  of  Christianity  is  so  vague  and  feeble,  that 
Arians  and  Jews  cordially  hold  communion  with 
him!  Can  this  be  right?  Where  in  the  Psalms 
are  we  taught  that  "  the  babe  of  Bethlehem  "  was 
"the  child  born,  the  son  given"  of  prop]. 
Where  in  that  book  do  we  learn  (as  taught  by 
the  prophets,)  that  he  should  be  horn  of  a  virgin, 
and  that  Mary  of  Nazareth  was  to  be  his  mother? 

re  is  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  Lord's  Day, 
from  expr&fe  regard  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
tatight  in  the  PsalmS?  No  where.  Are  all  these 
preci<»u-  Divine  truths  to  be  ignored  in  the  system 
of  public  and  private  praise  adopted  by  Christians, 
ignored  as  entirely  as  by  the  Jew.-,  those  bitter 
enemies  of  the   CROSS?      Let  common   i 

ling  of   Christian    propriety  answer   the 

;ion. 
10.  A  tenth  objection  to  the  exclusive  theory 


05  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT   FOR   THE 

is,  that  it  is  a  tree  which  bears  bad  fruit.  It  was 
not  to  be  expected  that  the  reviewer  would  under- 
take anything  like  a  fair  and  full  investigation  of 
the  mass  of  evidence  adduced  in  the  "  Letters" 
to  overthrow  his  exclusive  doctrine.  That  was  a 
task  which  prudence,  "the  better  part  of  valor," 
placed  entirely  out  of  the  question.  But  it  was 
reasonable  to  expect  that  if  unable  to  meet  the 
array  of  facts  and  arguments  fairly,  he  would  at 
least  treat  a  courteous  argument  with  correspond- 
ing courtesy.  In  this,  however,  he  has  sadly  dis- 
appointed all  just  expectations.  He  seems  to  have 
forgotten  that  "the  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not 
strive,  but  be  gentle  to  all  men — patient,  in  meek- 
ness instructing  those  that  oppose  themselves" — 
"showing  all  meekness  to  all  men."  This  is  his 
preaching — but  alas  for  his  practice  !  But  it  was 
hardly  to  be  supposed  that  the  writer  of  the  "Let- 
ters" would  be  dealt  with  courteously,  when,  as 
we  have  shown,  such  ministers  as  Drs.  Paxton 
and  Howard  are  charged  with  "a  want  of  ingenu- 
ousness," which  Dr.  P.  says  "it  is  not  his  province 
to  determine  whether  it  was  intentional  or  other- 
wise !"  He  is  not  willing  to  say  whether  these  min- 
isters intended  to  deceive  the  public  or  not!  This 
is  the  style  in  which  Dr.  P.  can  speak  of  acknow- 
ledged brethren,  who  are  every  way  (years  ex- 
cepted,) vastly  his  superiors.     These  are  not  the 


BOOK    OF    PSALMS    AXCLUSl VKLY. 

clusters  of  Eehcol,  but  fruits  of  a  very  different 
vine.  They  reflect  darkly  upon  their  author. 
They  lack  the  odor  of  sanctity.  They  Would  he 
very  bad  from  the  pen  of  hyum-singers — hut  what 
must  they  be  from  the  advocate  of  the  only  pure 

Psalmody? 

Btlt  the  unwholesome  fruits  of  the  ecclesiastical 
m  of  which  the  exclusive  literal  theory  of 
Psalmody  is  a  main  pillar  (the  other  being  "close 
communion"),  are  acknowledged  by  some  of  the 
most  active  and  useful  ministers  of  the  United 
Presbyterian  dencmination;  anoVthey  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  express  their  opinions  pretty  freely  on  the 
subject.  Thus,  in  refuting  Dr.  P's.  tract  on  Church 
Fellowship  (close  communion),  the  Rev.  W.  C. 
M'Cune,  of  Cincinnati,  says:  "In  view  of  the 
many  excellent  gifts  and  graces  in  the  ministry  of 
the  United  Presbyterian  Church,  must  we  not  con- 
fess that  her  ministry,  for  some  cause,  is  sadly 
inefficient  in  calling  men  to  repentance  and  the 
faith  of  the  gospel?"  "Why  is  it,"  remarks  Mr. 
M'Cune,  "that  *  *  *  *  while  the  record 
of  every  evangelical  denomination  is  very  sad  and 
humiliating  in  this  regard,  our  record,  notwith- 
standing our  large  accessions  from  the  other  side 
of  tie-  it   mtich  worse,   than   that  of  - 

other.-':"'     "  La  not  our  want  of  suet--  due,  h(A  to 
our  exces-ive  purity,  hut  to  some  corruption  either 
8* 


90  NO  DIVINE   WARRANT    FOR   THE 

in  our  preaching,  or  in  our  Church  polity."  Mr. 
M'Cune  is  evidently  on  the  right  track — and  if 
we  are  not  greatly  mistaken,  it  will  not  be  long 
until  he  shall  discover  that  these  acknowledged 
evils  in  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  are 
traceable  in  a  large  part  to  their  narrow  views  of 
Psalmody,  which  in  a  great  measure  ignore  the 
brighter  and  more  glorious  displays  of  "  grace, 
truth,  life  and  immortality,' '  as  brought  to  light 
in  the  gospel. 

The  same  writer,  extending  his  views  beyond 
the  narrow  circle  jf  his  own  denomination,  forcibly 
portrays  the  wide-spread  desolations  which  the 
cause  of  our  common  Christianity  is  made  to  suffer 
from  the  same  schismatical  sources.  We  quote  a 
few  particulars: 

(1.)  "  These  divisions  enable  infidels  to  say  that 
the  Bible  must  be  a  very  obscure  or  a  very  contra- 
dictory book,  when  men  who  profess  to  be  born 
of  the  Spirit  and  to  be  guided  by  the  Spirit,  can- 
not sufficiently  agree  concerning  its  meaning,  to 
live  together  in  one  organization. " 

(2.)  "These, divisions  shamefully  and  recklessly 
waste  the  labors  and  means  of  the  Church,  and 
greatly  enfeeble  her,  by  building  in  almost  every 
village  and  neighborhood,  twice  as  many  church 
edifices  and  sustaining  twice  as  many  ministers  as 
are  really  necessary. " 


BOOK    09    PSALM*  3IYBLT.  (J1 

-inful  schisms  make  the  evange 
tioo  of  our  large  cities  almost  impossible.    Nearly 

all  the  unconverted  have  their  sectarian  prejudices, 
And  sometimes  nearly  every  sect  (there  are  fifty  of 
them)  has  its  representatives  on  the  same  square 
mile."  *  *  *  "These  Bchisms  in  the  one 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  have  been  her  discou 
ment,  her  weakness  and  her  disgrace."  And  to 
enforce  these  humiliating  conclusions,  Mr.  M'Cune 
adds  :  **  The  great  mass  of  the  people  in  this  land, 
notwithstanding  our  Sabbath  schools  and  prayer 
meetings,  our  Bibles,  our  ministers,  our  churches 
and  our  profession  of  Christianity,  go  down  to 
perdition,  generation  after  generation,  unforgiven, 
unrenewed  and  forever  lost." 

We  quote  these  paragraphs,  not  as  expressing 
their  author's  views  of  Psalmody — but  as  a  relia- 
ble testimony  of  the  bad  fruits  in  the  United 
Presbyterian  denomination  of  that  narrow  exclus- 
ive theory  which  Dr.  P.  has  adopted — including, 
as  we  verily  believe,  the  evils  which  flow  from 
"close"  Psalmody,  no  less,  if  not  in  a  far  higher 
e,  than  ''close  communion."  At  all  events 
the  evils  are  there,  felt,  acknowledged  and  mourn- 
ed over  even  by  some  of  the  most  active  mini 
of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church.  Some  trace 
them  to  " close  communion."  We  have  not  a 
doubt  that  is  only  half  the  true  solution,  i:' 
-<•  much  Bhould  be  conceded. 


92  NO    DIVINE    WARRANT   FOR    THE 

In  view  of  such  truths  as  those  just  quoted,  it  is 
surely  not  too  much  to  say  that  Dr.  P's.  exclusive 
theory  is  a  bad  tree  and  produces  very  much  bad 
fruit.  Infidels  and  the  ungodly  of  every  class  are 
led  to  treat  with  scorn  Christianity  itself,  which 
they  confound  with  this  "  tithing  of  mint,  cummin 
and  anise."  The  subject  is  by  no  means  exhaust- 
ed. But  until  these  ten  grave  objections  to  the 
exclusive  theory  are  obviated,  it  is  hardly  neces- 
sary to  pursue  the  topic  further. 

Meanwhile  it  is  gratifying  to  observe  that  with 
the  single  exception  of  less  than  fifty  Covenanter 
congregations,  all  the  venerable  mother  Churches 
of  Scotland  are  more  and  more  repudiating  the 
contracted  notions  of  Dr.  P.  The  Free  and  Es- 
tablished Churches,  as  before  stated,  have  always 
sanctioned  such  "  human  compositions"  as  those 
of  Addison,  commencing,  "When  all  thy  mercies, 
0  my  God" — "  The  spacious  firmament  on  high," 
&c;  as  also  sixty-five  versifications  of  parts  of 
Isaiah,  &c,  which  they  call  u paraphrases,"  and 
which  make  no  pretensions  to  be  "  literal  ver- 
sions"— but  are  of  "  human  composure." 

During  the  present  year,  moreover,  on  motion 
.o'f  Dr.  Candlish,  an  overture  was  addressed  to  the 
Free  Church  Assembly,  to  authorize  the  use  of  a 
Selection  of  Hymns.  This  overture  was  debated  at 
the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Lothian  and  Tweed- 


BOOK   OF    PSALMS    EXCLUSIVELY.  93 

dale.     Wl  came  b  rfTore  the   Free 

was   delivered  by 
Dr.  Candlish,  of  which  the  Rev.  Richard  L 
Lawrenceville,  who  was  present,  has  famished  to 

the  Banner  the  following  abstract.  Dr.  C.  said  : 
u  He  loved  the  Psalms  as  much  as  any  man  living, 
granted  their  inspiration  and  fitness  for  pr 
bat  denied  that  God  ever  gave  to  the  Church  in 
any  age,  the  book  of  Psalms  alone  for  praise. 
That  the  assertion  that  he  ever  did,  was  false  and 
gratuitous.  That  the  Psalms  was  as  much  a  book 
of  prayer  as  a  book  of  praise.  That  many  by 
their  mode  of  defending  the  Psalms  alone,  dishon- 
ored the  beautiful  sonars  of  the  angels  at  the  birth  of 
Christ,  and  other  Bible  poetry,  telling  the  people 
that  'Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,'  should 
not  be  sung.  That  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Church 
required  other  words  than  David's  in  its  expres- 
sion, viz.,  the  name  of  Jesus,  Calvary,  kc.  That 
the  Church  for  hundreds  of  years  had  five  hymns 
and  many  paraphrases  in  their  Psalter,  and  no 
harm  had  resulted,  and  who  will  make  the  trouble 
Not  we  who  ask  for  the  hymns,  for  we  will 
let  y.  Psalms  and  join  you  as  ever.     But 

you,  who  curtail  our  liberty,  you  who  wish  to  bind 
our  c  ith  your  conviotioi  if  any 

.  will  make  the  trouble.     Is  it  meet  thai 
rob  us":     We    fought   the    Liturgy  as    a  book   of 


&4  NO    DIVINE   WARRANT   FOR   THE 

prayer ;  we  are  not  confined  to  Bible  prayers,  and 
you  cannot  confine  us  to  the  Psalms  in  praise." 

Other  speakers  followed  in  the  same  strain,  con- 
demning the  exclusive  theory:  "One  man  said 
he  loved  the  Psalms  so  mtrch  that  he  repudiated 
the  error  in  the  first  line  of  the  version,  and  asked 
all  the  Professors  to  state  if  David  ever  said 
'That  man  had  perfect  blessedness;'  that  when- 
ever he  gave  that  out  he  felt  the  necessity  of  an 
explanation/'  Another  said,  that  every  scholar 
knew  that  hymns  were  always  used  and  had  always 
been  used,  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  would 
continue  to  be  used,  even  if  the  Assembly  should 
stultify  itself  by  asserting  that  God  commanded 
the  Church  to  sing  exclusively  the  Psalms.  Our 
great  and  good  men,  Luther,  Knox,  Buchanan, 
&c,  and  pious  women,  had  made  and  sung  hymns; 
against  the  tyranny  of  exclusion,  the  children, 
and  very  stones  would  cry  out;  that  it  was  about 
time  to  say  to  exclusive  bigotry,  which  threatend 
trouble  to  all  who  differed  from-  it,  that  there  was 
also  danger  in  attacking  liberty  of  opinion  and 
action." 

These  facts  and  arguments  are  very  interesting, 
as  showing  the  style  of  scorn  in  which  the  greatest 
and  best  men  of  Scotland  treat  the  exclusive  theory. 
The  result  was,  that  it  was  resolved,  by  a  large 
majority,  to  appoint  a  committee  to  consider  the 
whole  subject. 


BOOJf   01   PSALMS  EXCLUSIVELY.  95 

At   the   last   meeting  of   the  Assembly  of  the 
Established  Churcb  (May,  1806),  pesolui 

1  unanimously^  to  and  improve  "the 

k  of  Hymns,  prepai  B  Committee  of  the 

Church/1  and  which  uhas  already  come  to  be 
by  various  The  committee  were 

"instructed  to  admit  only  such  hymns  to  the  vol- 
ume as  have  found  genera]  acceptance  among 
Christian  people,"  and  "in  the  exact  words  of  their 
authors."  Such  is  the  power,  such  the  progress 
of  truth,  in  the  two  principal  bodies  of  Presbyteri- 
ir  old  orthod  ind,   -'beloved  for 

the  father-'   -  s  well  as  for  her.  own.     \> 

for  the  "United  Presbyterian  Churcb  of  Scotland," 
their  "Hymn  Book"  has  been  sanctioned  and  in 
use  for  ten  or  twelve  years.  It  contains  four  hun- 
dred and  ninety  pieQ<  >f  which  have  no 
connection  with  the  *k  book  of  Psalms."  And  now 
we  are  further  "  tJh  •  English  Presbyterian 
Synod  hymn  book,  with 

hundred  and   thirty  songs  of  prai 

-:  we  omit  a$an  interesting  piece  of  histo? 
•  vent-  nearer  home,  the  recent  action  of  the 
f  the   B  Presbyterian  Church." 

nt  of  the  Prei  •  says :    ■ 

':  of  the  r  : 

and  i:  ■■  i.     A  resolution  to  cull  : 

count  certain    |  mmon  r 


96  NO    DIVINE    WARRANT,    &C. 

with  the  use  of  hymns,  was  rejected  with  indigna- 
tion. A  very  large  number,  both  of  the  ministers 
and  members,  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church 
use  hymns  when  worshiping  with  other  Christians, 
regarding  any  prohibition  as  a  rule  of  order  apply- 
ing only  to  worship  in  their  own  churches.  Once 
and  again,  the  General  Synod  has  refused  to 
condemn  or  censure,  and  they  feel  at  liberty  to 
continue  to  sing  hymns  as  heretofore,  and  they 
intend  to  do  so." 

In  view. of  such  cheering  facts  as  these,  both  at 
home  and  a.broad,  a  fit  conclusion  of  this  whole 
argument  is  found  in  the  noble  lano-uag-e  of  George 
II.  Stuart  before  the  Free  Church  Assembly. 
Alluding  to  the  debate  on  Psalmody,  he  said  :  "  I 
am  a  Psalm  singer;  but  like  you,  I  sometimes  sing 
hymns.  Oh,  sir,"  he  continued,  "  this  singing 
should  not  keep  us  apart.  ,  I  mean  to  devote  my 
whole  life  to  a  union  of  all  Presbyterians;  then  we 
would  be  the  grandest  body  the  world  ever  saw." 
This  brought  down  the  house,  who  clapped,  laugh- 
ed, and  in  many  ways  evinced  their  joy. 


DR.   p's.    PUtSOKAIATlKS,    AC.  07 


PART    III. 

DB.  PS.   PEBSONALITIES  AND  MIS- 
STATEMENTS. 


A  A  J  E  have  now  examined,  in  brief,  the  strie- 
\  ▼       tares  of  the  reviewer  so  far  as  they  bear 
upon  the  question,  whether  Roi  reification 

is  an  "inspired  Psalmody,"  and  the  further  ques- 
tion of  ua  Drvixi-;  warrant  for  the  ezelurii 
of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms  in  public  and 
private  praise/1  We  next  propose  to  notice  several 
things  of  a  more  pergonal  nature — especially  as 
this  will  furnish  a  suitable  opportunity  to  expose 
a  number  of  the  misstatements  and  illogical  rea- 
sonings of  the  reviewer. 

I.  Concerning  "Gall." 

t  more  than   once  alleges  that  the 
author  of  the  "Letters"  had,  as  he  express 
udu  '  i  gall  against  Rouse's  paraphrase.91 

if  this  w  he  would  have  done  nothing 

me  of  the  United  P 

Thus    in    an    article    in    the 

>//,  published  last  Pebmary,  from 


98  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

the  pen  of  Rev.  Andrew  Ilerron,  we  read,  "It 
has  grieved  me  much  to  see  the  undisguised  con- 
tempt  which  some  of  the  writers  have  poured  upon 
our  venerable  and  time-honored  version."  These 
writers,  he  adds,  were  discussing  the  subject  of  a 
new  version  in  their  own  paper.  If  such  be  the 
low  estimate  which  even  United  Presbyterian  cler- 
gymen have  formed  of  Rouse,  Dr.  P.  should  look 
with  some  leniency  upon  the  expressions  of  others. 
But  the  language  of  the  reviewer  is  an  entire 
misstatement.  The  "  Letters"  present  facts  which 
Dr.  P.  has  very  unsuccessfully  attempted  to  set 
aside,  in  regard  to  the  mixed  cfcracter  of  the 
versification  of  Rouse.  Those  unquestionable  facts 
overthrow  a  large  number  of  the  logical  positions 
assumed  in  his  book  and  in  his  review.  If  there 
be  any  "gall"  in  the  case,  possibly  it  may  be  found 
in  his  own  breast.  The  author  of  the  "  Letters" 
had  none  of  it,  and  therefore  could  not  discharge 
it.  If  the  "Letters"  had  employed  such  expres- 
sions as  "  Watts'  Whymes,"  &c,  they  would  have 
had  something  of  "gall"  about  them. 

II.  Mr.  A's.  "Artful  Evasions." 

Dr.  P.  charges  the  author  of  the  "  Letters" 
repeatedly  with  "artfully  evading''  the  "main 
proposition,"  viz.,  "  Is  a  fair  and  full  version  of 
the  Psalms  of  Divine  appointment?"     But  if  he 


AND   MISSTATKM1  :  99 

ha  1  read  with  any  care  the  book  he  reviews,  he 
would  have  seen  that  the  object  in  the  first  five  of 
ters"  is  stated  to  be  "to  demonstrate  that 
this  '.proposition1  does  not  give  a  correct  repre- 
sentation of  the  position  practically  held  by  him- 
self and  other  authors."*  This,  as  before  stated, 
is  proved  by  such  incontrovertible  facts  as  these: 
1.  They  have  no  fair  and  literal  version — no  ver- 
sion at  all — but  a  patchwork  paraphrase.  2. 
They  have  not  even  a  "full"  paraphrase;  for  they 
4'lay  aside  as  useless"  large  parts  of  the  inspired 
Psalmti — "songs  composed  in  heaven."  3.  Of 
course  the  assumption  of  "Divine  appointment 
for  a  version  of  the  whole  book"  is  a  mere  shadow 
without    the    substance.      The    reviewer    sings   a 

amount  of  "human  composition" — profanely 
mutilates  GhxTa  Psalm  book — and  then  very  com- 

ntly  denounces  others  for  the  very  acts 
of  which  he  himself  is  guilty  !  Is  there  no 
"evasion"  in  this  case?  People  of  sense  will  laugh 
to  scorn  the  man  who  with  great  gravity  in  word 
and  manner,  points  to  "the  sin  of  Nadab  and 
Abihu,"  talks  of  the  crime  of  "offering  strange 
fire,"  fci  sacrificing  a  pig  instead  of  a  kid," 
and   then   after  leveling  these  and  other  maledic- 

st  the  head-  of  ;  rians,  turns  q 

ly  round  and  "impious"  example! 

*  Letters  on  Psalmodf,  p, 


100  PR.    P'S,    PERSONALITIES 

III.  "  Teaching  our  Blessed  Saviour." 

The  reviewer  accuses  us  with  "undertaking  to 
teach  our  blessed  Lord  what  language  He  should 
employ  in  declaring  the  truth."  But  here  again 
Dr.  P's.  zeal  overleaps  his  discretion  and  exceeds 
the  truth.  The  case  to  which  he  refers  is  this : 
In  speaking  of  the  Greek  title  of  the  book  of 
Psalms  —  Biblos  Psalmon  —  the  "Letters"  admit 
that  it  is  used  by  Luke  (chap.  20  :  42)  to  designate 
that  book.  At  the  same  time  it  is  stated  that  the 
original  inspired  Hebrew  title  is  Tehillim — which 
means  simply  "praises,"  whether  in  prayer  or 
otherwise,  with  no  exclusive  reference  to  psalms 
at  all,  this  latter  word  (jisalms)  commonly  referring 
to  the  accompanying  instrumental  music,  being 
derived  from  a  Greek  wrord  signifying  "to  strike 
the  chords  of  an  instrument,"  and  hence  "to  sing, 
to  chant,  with  such  an  accompaniment," 

.Now,  whilst  we  admit  that  Luke  reports  one 
of  the  addresses  of  our  Lord  as  using  the  title 
Biblos  Psalmon — this  being  the  title  employed  by 
the  Septuagint,  which  was  generally  quoted  by 
the  inspired  apostles — this  fact,  certainly,  does 
not  set  aside  the  original  title  of  the  Psalms  in 
Hebrew,  viz.,  Tehillim, praises — and  the  "Letters" 
add,  "that  the  propriety"  of  the  more  general 
title   originally  chosen  by  the   Spirit  of  God,  is 


AND    MI-  MS.  101 

obvious  :  became  b  tm<  t  of  the  Psalma  arc 

prayers,  as  the  ninetieth,  "the  prayer  of  Moses" 

— fvrtij  are  OH  general  topics  of  instruction,  ten 
are  prophetical,  and  a  few  are  historical.     These 

are  the  facts  on  which  tlie  reviewer  charges  the 
author  of  the   u  Letters'1   with  undertaking  "to 

teach  our  Lord  what  language  he  should  employ." 
But  even  if  we  were  to  admit  that  our  Lord  did 
086  the  Greek  title,  and  not  the  original  inspired 
title  of  the  Hebrew,  would  there  be  anything  very 

me  in  saying,  as  the  "  Letters"  do,  that  the 
original  title  chosen  by  the  Holy  Spirit  seems, 
from  its  being  u  more  general,"  to  have  a  greater 
"propriety"  than  the  Greek  title  of  the  Septu- 
agint,  even  if  it  were  used  by  Christ?     In  that 

both  would  of  course  be  considered  as  inspir- 
ed, and  there  would  be  nothing  rash  or  impious 
in  Baying  that  the  one.  the  Hebrew  title,  being 
more  general,  se-ms  to  indicate  the  more  com- 
mon characteristics  of  the  book  of  Psalms,  viz., 
u praises,"  whether  in  prayer,  or  by  singing,  or 
with  trumpets,  and  the  dance;  and  that  the  Greek 
title — Bibloi  Ptalnum — rather  seems  to  convey 
the  idea  of  '-the  common  musical  accompaniment" 
with  which  the  Psalms  were  originally  sung.  Such 
is  the  whole  "head  and  front"  of  the  dreadful 
offence  committed  by  the  author  of  the  "Letters,*1 
which  Dr.  P#  I  ;  our  blessed    Lord 


102  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

how  to  speak  !"    But  the  fact  is,  Dr.  P.  is  entirely 
mistaken  in  saying  "that  our  blessed  Lord  desig- 
nates the  Psalms  by  the  title  '  Biblos  Psalmon.' " 
He  does  no  such  thing!     Dr.  P.  certainly  knows 
that  our  Lord  did  not  teach  in  the  Greek  language. 
He  surely  knows  that  the  vernacular  of  the  Jews, 
spoken  by  our  Lord,  was  the  Syro-Chaldaic,  not 
the  Greek.     How  then  could  he  employ  the  Greek 
title  "Bibles  Psalmon  ¥"    That  is  the  title  used  by 
Luke  in  translating  the   Saviour's  discourse  into 
Greek.     Now  as  Dr.  P.  tells  us  "  the  Greek  Sep- 
tuagint  was  the  translation  used  generally  through- 
out the  Church,"  it  was  natural  that  Luke,  who 
was  writing  Greek,  should  use  the  very  title  of  the 
Psalms  in  the  Septuagint,  viz.,  Biblos  Psalmon. 
But  how  ridiculous  in  the  reviewer  to  represent 
our  blessed  Lord  as  teaching  in  a  language  which 
not  one  in  a  thousand  of  his  hearers  could  under- 
stand !     All  who  can  read  the  Greek  Testament, 
know  too,  that  the  apostles,  acting  under  Divine 
inspiration,  did  ordinarily  quote  the   Septuagint 
when  referring  to  the  Old   Testament,  and  that 
too  in  various  instances  where  the  translation  of 
the  Septuagint  was  in  some  respects  quite  errone- 
ous, but  sufficiently  correct  in  the  matter  referred 
to.     If  any  proof  of   this  is    needed,  look  into 
"Home's Introduction."  Now  as  "Biblos Psalmon" 
used  by  the  Septuagint,  is  no  translation  of  the 


AND   misstati:mi:.vis.  103 

Hebrew  title  TehUUm  in  the  Old 

it  id  plain  that  our  Lord  certainly  used  the 

Ohaldaic  or  Hebrew  title  in  addressing  the  Jews 

in   their   own   tongue;    and   Luke,   writing   in   the 
Ghneek  language,  appears  to  have  quoted  the  Sep- 

tuagint  as  sufficiently  aeeurate  to  indicate  the 
book  referred  to.  What  then  becomes  of  the 
reviewer's  statement,  "that  our  Lord  designates 
/-alms  by  the  title  Biblos  P&almon,  "book 
of  Psalms.'  '  Our  Lord  demonstrably  did  no  such 
thing,  for  the  plain  reason  that  he  wished  his 
rs  to  understand  him. 

While,  however,  we  maintain  that  Luke  and  the 
Others  wrote  under  Divine  inspiration,  we  know, 
too,  that  this  did  not  prevent  the  four  evangelists 
from  often  reporting  the  discourses  of  our  Lord  in 
language  greatly  differing  from  each  other.  Of 
eoiUfoe  they  did  not  all  report  the  precise  terms 
which  he  employed  on  any  given  occasion,  nor  any 
ise  Greek  translation  of  them. :: 

In   view  of  these   familiar    facts,   the   revi 
will  scarcely  venture  to  repeat  his  charge  that  we 
profanely  "undertake   to    teach   our   Lord  what 
language  he  should  employ  ]" 

*  A  familiar  examph 
Lord  e  heed  how  ye  hear.'*      Another  I 

"  Take  heed  who.- 


104  DR.    P's.    PERSONALITIES 

IV,  "You  and  Dr.  Watts." 

Dr.  P.  does  the  writer  of  the  "  Letters"  too 
much  honor  (though  he  thinketh  not  so)  in  coupling 
his  name  with  that  of  Dr.  Watts,  thus — "  you  and 
Dr.  Watts,  par  nobile  fratrum,"  L  0.,  a  noble 
pair  of  brothers.  We  are  bound  to  be  especially 
thankful  to  Dr.  P.,  since  he  himself  calls  Dr. 
Watts  "  this  distinguished  writer" — "this  cele- 
brated writer;"  though  our  modesty  recoils  from 
the  distinction.  Few  men  have  been  more  grossly 
slandered  than  Dr.  Watts  ;  and  it  is  remarkable 
that  while  repeating  his  old  song  about  the  "prin- 
ciples" adopted  by  that  writer  in  preparing  his 
versification  of  the  Psalms,  the  reviewer  carefully 
avoids  the  smallest  notice  of  the  exposure  made 
in  Letter  XIV.,  of  the  gross  and  inexcusable  mis- 
representations of  his  sentiments.  There  are  some 
things  exposed  in  that  Letter  which  look  very 
dark,  and  should  cause  shame  to  redden  the  cheek 
of  some  persons.  As  to  what  Dr.  P.  has  so  often 
asserted,  viz.,  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  must 
of  necessity  approve  certain  principles  of  Dr. 
Watts,  this  no  more  follows  than  that  he  and  his 
brethren  must  adopt  Rouse's  principles,  agreeably 
to  which  he  makes  David  say  the  Christian  uhath 
perfect  blessedness,"  which  implies  perfect  holi- 
ness, and  teaches  the  error  of  "  sinless  perfection ;" 


I  j.mknts.  lOt 

principles  which  led  Rouse  to  n  present  the  atone* 
and  Batifi  Christ  as  a  compulsory 

work:  as  in  Ps.  69:  4,  "To  ebndeb  fobosd  wab 
1."     Thus,   Dr.    Watts  says,   "1   hate   entirely 
omitted  some  whole  Psalms."     But  is  this  tn 
the  Presbyterian  Pbalmody!    Even  our  little  chil- 
dren know  that  it  is  not.     That  such  writers  Sfi 

reviewer  are  incapable,  through  prejudice,  of 
treating  Dr.  Watts  fairly,  appears  from  many 
examples  such  as  the  following:  On  page  96  of 
"Pressly  on  Psalmody''  Dr.  Watts  is  quoted  as 
Baying  that  some  parts  of  "the  matter  and  words 
of  the  Psalms  are  almost  opposite  to  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel."  But  just  four  pages  farther  on,  Dr. 
P.  represents  Dr.  Watts  as  "  producing  the  im- 

ion   that   there  is  something  in   the  Psalms 

7/  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel."    See 

how  the  objectionable  matter  grows  in  his  hands 

from   ••almost  opposite"  to   "entirely  contrary." 

He  appears  to  observe  no  difference  ! 

Again  :    Dr.   P.   is  wry  severe  upon  Dr.  Watts 

he  represents  **  David  as  having  uttered 

rsdnal  enemies."     And 

[aires — *k  Could  the  Psalmist  then  have  been 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit':"     The 

ver  is  so  blindly  prejudiced   that   he  oai 

stinction  ;  spirit  of  private  r«  . 

and  proper  personal  hostility  on  the  part  of  David, 


106  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

acting  as  the  Judge  of  Israel  and  the  Protector  of 
the  Church !  It  is  in  this  latter  character  that  Dr. 
Watts  speaks  of  "the  Psalmist's  personal  ene- 
mies," and  "his  resentment''  toward  them. 

Suppose  that  Dr.  Chalmers  were  tried  by  the 
same  blind  and  prejudiced  standard  which  Dr. 
P.  applies  to  Dr.  Watts.  Thus:  "We  have  no 
doubt,"  says  Dr.  Chalmers,  "that  this  Joab  was 
often  in  the  eye  of  the  Psalmist,  when  he  penned 
his  complaints  and  maledictions  against  his  ene- 
mies." Again  says  Dr.  Chalmers:  "Let  the 
spirit  breathed  forth  by  him  in  the  Psalms  guide 
and  actuate  us,  save  when  he  indulges  in  the  vin- 
dictive strain.  *  *  *  *  For  nothing  can  he 
more  adverse  than  is  the  spirit  which  often  seems, 
at  least,  to  break  forth  in  the  Psalms,  to  the 
spirit  of  our  own  Christianity."*  Truly  this  is 
almost  as  bad  as  Dr.  Watts  !  The  reviewer  should 
snatch  his  thunderbolts  and  hurl  them  at  the 
head  of  the  late  venerable  leader  of  the  Free 
Church  of  Scotland  !  Again  :  Dr.  P.  in  his  blind 
prejudice  inquires:  "Do  you  think  that  (accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Watts)  the  language  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  uttered  can  have  a  tendency  'to  sink  our 
devotion  and  hurt  our  worship.'"  We  answer: 
Certainly  not,  unless  grossly  perverted  from  the 
original  design  for  which  such  language  was  em- 
*  Sab.  Scrip.  Readings,  vol.  2,  pp.  401,  447. 


and   misstatements.  107 

ployed.  The  Holy  Ghost  uttered,  Dent  23:1, 
MHe  that  is  wounded,"  fcc<     It  is  i  part  of  holy 

Scripture,  "profitable  for  doctrine,  reproof,  and 
instruction    in   righteousness," — and    "of  use  to 

direct  us  in  praise  and  prayer."  But  suppose 
Dr.  P.  should  introduce  that  text  into  one  of  his 
public  prayers — does  he  not  think  it  would  have 
"a  tendency  to  sink  the  devotion  of  his  congrega- 
tion and  hurt  their  worship."  Or  suppose  he 
should  announce  that  text  as  the  foundation  of  a 
sermon  !  Would  it  not  sink  their  devotion  ?  Would 
it  not  hurt  their  worship?  Or  does  he  think  it 
would  refine  and  Bpirifoalize  it  ?  Certainly  instead 
of  being  spiritually  benefited,  Dr.  P.  well  knows 
that  by  such  a  use  of  Deut.  23  :  1  his  people  would 
be  constrained  to  think  the  preacher  crazy,  and 
his  elders  would  rush  to  the  pulpit  to  arrest  his 
folly,  and  sink  him  out  of  that  sacred  place  !  And 
all  this  simply  from  using  "the  language  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  uttered  !" 

We  suppose,  therefore,  that  it  is  plain  to  all 
persons  of  common  sense  (perhaps  we  may  except 
this  reviewer)  that  there  are  some  parts  of  "  Scrip- 
ture given  by  inspiration,"  which  if  introduced 
into  the  public  service  of  the  sanctuary,  would 
tend  "to  sink  devotion  and  hurt  the  worship. M 
Dr.  Watt-  was  of  this  opinion  in  regard  to 
of  the    Psalms,  just   as   other 


108  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

men  of  sense  apply  it  to  some  other  parts  of  the 
"  language  which  the  Holy  Ghost  uttered."  He  is 
speaking  of  certain  Jewish  peculiarities  which  he 
admits  to  be  "  the  beauties  and  perfections  of 
Hebrew  song,"  but  ill-adapted  to  praise  under 
the  gospel.  He  thinks  "  that  in  the  use  of 
such  passages  the  unthinking  multitude  go  sing- 
ing in  cheerful  ignorance,  across  the  river  Jordan, 
through  the  land  Gebal,  Ammon  and  Amelek,  * 
*  *  they  join  with  the  high  sounding  cymbals, 
their  thoughts  are  bedarkened  with  the  smoke  of 
incense  and  covered  with  Jewish  veils."  "Some 
dreadful  curse  against  men  is  proposed  to  our 
lips" — such  as  "  consume  them  in  wrath,  con- 
sume them  that  they  may  not  be" — Ps.  59  :  13. 
"  Thou  hast  given  me  the  necks  of  my  enemies,  that 
I  may  destroy  them  that  hate  me''  It  is  in  reference 
to  a  number  of  such  passages  he  inquires,  "Why 
must  I  join  with  David  in  his  legal  or  prophetic 
language  to  curse  my  enemies,  when  my  Saviour 
has  taught  me  to  love  and  bless  them?"  Dr. 
Chalmers  felt  the  same  difficulty,  as  before  quoted. 
Dr.  Watts  says  he  designed  the  "Jewish  Psalmist 
plainly  to  appear ',  yet  leave  Judaism  behind.''' 
"What  need  is  there,"  he  adds,  "that  I  should 
wrap  up  the  shining  honors  of  my  Redeemer  in 
the  dark  and  shadowy  language  of  a  religion  (or 
dispensation)  which  is  now  forever  abolished ;  espe- 


AND    MISSTATEMENTS.  109 

cially  hemently  Earned 

by  Paul  a  ."     uFor  why 

should  I  now  address  G  "1  my  Saviour  in  a 
with  burnt  sacrifices  of  fatlings  and  the  incense  of 

rams':      Why  should    I    pray  to  be  sprinkled   with 
p,  or   recur    to   the    Wo  »d    of   bullocks    and 
.  or  hind  my  sacrifices  with  cords  to  the  horns 
of  tin  fcc. 

Now  it  is  obvious  to  every  candid  mind  that 
in  thus  ''accommodating  the  book  of  Psalms  to 
Christian  (as  distinguished  from  Jewish) worship," 
as  Dr.  Watts  expresses  it,  his  plan  could  have 
reference  only  to  those  parts  of  certain  of  them 
which   contained  i1  rish  peculiarities.      And 

in  this  he  only  proposed  to  do  in  good  po*  tni  what 
Dr.    Pressly  and   other   ministers   of  the  tJ 

•yterian    Church   do   every    Sabbafh    day  in 
..  explain  these  passages  as  interpreted 
by  the  New  Testament.    Yet  Dr.  P.  has  the  bold* 
.    K  It  would  appear  in  the  estimation 
of  this  man  (Dr.  Watts. )  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Spirit  which  the  Psalmist  enjoyed,  Was  very 
icient,  and   that   it  was  necessary  that  one  in 
modern  times  should  undertake  the  office  of  teach- 
ing him  I  tike  a  Christian/'     MTh< 
I  on  such  a  principle,"  add 
I\.  *•  i  i  pun  the  Spirit  of  'inspira- 
tion.1 '                      plain  that  W  not  a  whit 

10 


110  DR.    p'S.    PERSONALITIES 

more  guilty  in  this  matter  than  Pressley— the  dif- 
ference consisting  in  this,  that  the  one  "  teaches'' 
in  verse,  the  other  in  very  plain  prose.  Such  are 
the  candor  and  fairness  with  which  Dr.  Watts  has 
been  dealt  with  by  the  sticklers  for  an  exclusive 
theory !  By  this  method  how  easy  to  rob  almost 
any  writer  of  his  reputation ;  as  for  example,  when 
D'Aubigne  says  of  Luther,  that  "he  undertook  the 
difficult  task  of  making  these  Divine  teachers  (the 

O  v. 

apostles)  speak  his  mother  tongue,"  viz.,  the  Ger- 
man language.*  Of  course,  the  inference  must  be 
that  these  "Divine  teachers"  were  very  slow  in 
receiving  instruction !  !  So  Dr.  Watts  uses  the 
expression — "teach  the  inspired  Psalmist  to  speak 
English;"  i.  e.  by  translation.  Another  "fearful 
indignity  to  the  Holy  Spirit !  ! !" 

It  is  not  denied  that  a  few  phrases  employed  by 
Dr.  Watts,  in  order  strongly  to  convey  his  meaning, 
are  injudicious,  because  liable  to  be  misunderstood. 
But  the  examples  now  adduced,  and  others  in  the 
"Letters,"  demonstrate  that  if  read  with  candor 
and  that  fair  and  charitable  temper  which  should 
govern  all  Christians,  especially  in  controversy  with 
each  other,  he  would  be  found  to  have  said  nothing 
worse  than  Dr.  Chalmers,  Dr.  John  Owen,  and  most 
other  ministers  have  said  in  relation  to  "  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Nor  is  there  the  slight- 
*  History  of  Reformation,  vol.  3,  p.  31. 


AND    HI80EAXBMRHT&  111 

est  inconsistency  in  his  declaring :  "I  esteem  the 
book  of  Psalms  as  the  n  ible  part  of  the  Old 

"Nothing  li  more  proper  to  furnish 
our  souls  with  devout  thoughts,  and  lead  us  into  a 
world  of  spiritual  experiences.  The  expressions 
that  are  not  Jewish  and  peculiar,  give  us  constant 
in  prayer  and  praise."  "If  we  find  our 
hearts  very  barren,"  he  adds,  "it  has  been  often 
very  useful  to  take  a  book  in  hand,  *  *  above 
all  the  Psalms  of  David,  some  of  the  prophecies  of 
Isaiah,  &c.  Thus  we  may  lift  up  our  hearts  to 
God."  Yet  this  is  the  man  who  is  said  to  have 
spoken  u  disparagingly  of  the  book  of  Psalms." 
This  is  the  man  whose  intention  is  said  to  have 
been  M  impiously  to  reject  the  Psalmist  from  the 
Church,"  though  he  expressly  says  his  object  was 
-•to  lead  the  Psalmist  of  Israel  into  the  church 
of  Christ,  without  *any  thing  of  a  Jew  about 
him."  And  thifl  is  what  Dr.  Watts  means  by 
11  teaching  the  Psalmist  to  speak  like  a  Christian" 
—  ue.ns  distinguished  from  the  phraseology  and 
of  Judaism  employed  in  some  of  the  Psalms. 
Yet  the  plain  reader  of  Dr.  P's.  book  and  review, 
Would  suppose  Dr.  W.  had  been  guilty  of  I  B] 
of  blasphemy  !  I  And  bo  Rr.  P.  charges  upon  Dr. 
tfl  and  all  who  employ  his  paraphrases  of  the 
Psali 


112  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 


V.  "Such  Crude  Statements." 

The  reviewer  goes  far  astray  in  attempting  to 
correct  what  he  styles  "such  crude  and  inconsider- 
ate statements'' — by  the  author  of  the  "  Letters. " 
Copying  the  error  of  "the  Testimony  of  the  Uni- 
ted Presbyterian  Church,"  he  seriously  affirms: 
"  This  precious  collection  of  Psalms  was  given 
by  the  instrumentality  of  the  sweet  Psalmist  of 
Israel."  "A  collection  given  by  David  !"  Does 
not  Dr.  P.  know  that  David  wrote  only  a  little 
more  than  seventy  of  the  whole  "collection"  of  one 
hundred  and  fifty  pieces  ?  A  number  of  them  were 
composed  long  after  David's  death,  and  some  dur- 
ing the  seventy  years'  captivity,  and  after  it.  The 
reviewer  is  rather  "crude  and  inconsiderate"  here. 
He  says  "the  collection  was  given  by  David," 
though  David  had  been  in  his  grave  between  four 
and  five  hundred  years  before  Ezra  formed  "the 
collection,"  and  placed  it  in  the  inspired  canon! ! 

VI.  Dr.  P's.  Bewilderment. 

Dr.  P.  betrays  his  sad  bewilderment  and  the 
embarrassment  of  his  position,  in  nothing  more 
than  when  he  claims  our  "endorsement  of  Rouse's 
versification  as  a  correct  and  faithful  version  of  the 
Psalms."  He  arrives  at  this  sage  conclusion  from 
the  following   facts :     In   refuting   the  shameful 


AND    IOS8TATSMB]  1  18 

charge  "that  Presbyterians  are  guilty  of  impi 

;  -  Psalm  book,"  the  "Letters'1  quote 
the  act  of  the  supreme  judicatory  ui'  our  Church, 
17s7.  uWe  are  FAB  from  DISAPPROVING  of  Rouse's 
version,  commonly  called  the  old  realms" — while 
act  authorizes  the  system  of  Dr.  Watts 
as  amended.  Of  course  this  was  not  exactly  the 
lame  iou%hj  rejecting  the  Psalms."     Per- 

ceiving,   however,   the   mistake   made  in  calling 
Rouse   " a  version  or  translation,"   the  author  of 
ays — "our    supreme  judicatory 
authorised  the  use  of  R  nox,"  not 

his  version.     Yet  the   reviewer   exposes  his  own 
great    simplicity   by  dwelling    upon  this  as    k*  an 
endorsement  of  Rouse  as  a  correct  and  faithful 
n  of  the  R-alms  I"    Does  he  not  know  the  dif- 
ference between  a  version  and  a  versification?   And 
to  render  the  reviewer'.-  lapsus  altogether  marvel- 
ous, five   lines  from   tfa  ious  inference   he 
himself  quotes  the  "  Letters''  as  calling  Rouse  "  a 
Yet   almost  in  the  same  breath  he 
accuses  the  author  with  teaching  that  Rouse  is  "a 
correct  and  faithful   version."      Thus  he  flounders 
on  from  point  to  point  without  either  rhyme  or 
-   n. 
But  if  we  were  to  concede  in   this  instance  all 
that  the   revieu                       upon  the  author  of  the 
uLet:                                 ;»'iit   and    contradictory,   it 
10* 


114  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

would  not  be  more  "impious"  than  the  following 
from  a  United  Presbyterian  paper:  "Jones'  ver- 
sion sometimes  leaves  out  a  part  of  the  inspired 
original ;  the  Scottish  version  (Rouse)  very  often 
adds  to  #."*  Thus  by  adopting  and  singing  Rouse, 
Dr.  P.  "  practically  declares  that  the  work  of  God 
needs  to  be  mended."  And  here  again  his  own 
religious  associates  plead  guilty  to  the  very  horri- 
ble thing  which  he  so  frequently  disclaims,  viz., 
that  "uninspired  men  have  authority  to  compose 
songs  of  praise  (or  what  in  principle  is  the  same, 
parts  of  songs),  to  be  employed  in  the  worship  of 
God."  And  this  daring  attempt  "to  write  better 
than  David,"  occurs  not  once  nor  twice,  but  by  the 
admission  of  his  own  brethren,  "very  often." 
Let  him  take  the  beam  out  of  his  own  eye,  before 
he  volunteers  to  take  the  mote  out  of  ours. 

YII.  Dr.  P.  on  "a  due  regard  for  Scripture." 

"The  Letters  on  Psalmody,"  says  Dr.  P.,  "em- 
ploy language  respecting  the  Psalms,  which  is 
inconsistent  with  a  due  regard  for  the  word  of 
God."  What  are  the  pretexts  for  this  grave  accu- 
sation? It  may  be  proper  to  premise  that  the 
reviewer's  "regard  for  the  word  of  God"  does  not 
rank  very  high  with  any  person  of  reflection,  who 
knows  that  he  unhesitatingly  proclaims  "Rouse's 

*  Presbyterian  Witness,  July  28,  1860. 


AND    ftUSfffATRMBNTO.  115 

paraphrase,"  with  ;  unin- 

liment,  as   ua  true  and  literal 
the  original — the  Qod  as  really  as   the 

translation  of  our  Bibles."*     While  such  a 

record  stands  against  him  under  hifl  own  liand  and 
seal,  hi-  zeal    foi  that  word   most   necessarily  rate 
beh»w   par.      But  perhaps  his  preaching   18  b 
than  his  practice.     Let  us  sec. 

••  The  author  of  the  Letters,"  he  says,  "cnn 
sucli  dubious  language  as  the  following :   'It  is  not 
denied,   tl  the  most  part  the  Psalms 

given  to  the  Jews  to  be  used  in  their  worship.'" 
Dr.  P.  means  that  to  say  any  part  of  the  Psalms 
not  given  to  be  sung,"  is  little  short  of  pro- 
fane! Put  why  so?  Because  *;the  Holy  Spirit 
appropriates  to  this  collection  the  title  'Book  of 
i  and  Psalms  are  songs  which  are  to  be 

sung."t    But  this  is  not  very  profound  logic.    Sup- 
H  o  reason  thus  :    u  The  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Old 
ament  calls  the    Psalms    T.Jtilnm,  *pri 
and   gives  one   of    them    the   title,    ;a  prayer   of 
Therefore  it  follows   that  the   'particu- 
lar use  for  which  all  these   prajprs  and   parts  of 
prayers  wrere  Intended  WBS  to  praise  God  by  singing 
tin m  Does   Dr.   P.   s'ng  his  public  pray 

Our  Catechiss  at  "in  our  pxi 

prais*  God/'     If  this  logic  be  n<»t  as  sound  ai 

*Pre«ly  on  Psalmody,  p.  117.     r  Pretsly,  pric 


11G  DR.    P's.    PERSONALITIES 

P's.  he  can  detect  the  flaw.  And  what  w  ill  he  do 
with  the  closing  song  of  Moses?  Deut.  31.  "Moses 
spaee  in  the  ears  of  all  the  congregation  of  Israel 
the  words  of  this  song."  The  Hebrew  word  trans- 
lated song,  is  the  same  used  in  the  titles  of  thirty 
of  the  Psalms ;  and  Dr.  P.  says,  "  they  are  songs 
which  are  to  be  sung,"  But  Moses  did  not  sing 
this  song  (Deut.  31),  nor  have  we  any  evidence 
that  it  ever  was  sung.  Yet  it  is*a  "song"  of  the 
same  nature,  and  bears  a  similar  title  with  thirty 
of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms.  From  this 
appears  how  feeble  the  argument  from  the  titles, 
whether  general  or  particular,  to  prove  their  special 
use.  So  in  Ps.  18,  "David  spake  unto  the  Lord 
the  words  of  this  song,  and  said"  &c. 

Again,  "Psalms  are  songs  to  be  sung."  But 
was  not  the  song  of  Moses  and  Miriam  at  the  Red 
Sea  actually  sung?  The  same  is  true  of  the  songs 
of  Deborah  and  of  the  Hebrew  women  in  celebra- 
ting the  victories  of  David.  Is  not  "the  Song  of 
Solomon"  a  song?  Of  course  it  should  be  sung. 
It  bears  the  same  title  w^ith  thirty  of  the  Psalms, 
and  is  the  most  excellent  of  them  all — the  very 
"song  of  songs."  According  to  the  reviewer's 
logic,  it  is  quite  profane  to  say  it  is  not  to  be  sung. 
If  "Psalms  are  songs  which  are  to  be  sung" — 
as  saith  the  reviewer — so  are  the  Hebrew  shirirn 
"  songs  which  are  to  be  sung;"  for  thirty  of  the  book 


AND    IflBf  117 

of  Ps  ilms  Nel  jo,  replies 

Dr.  P.    u  For  the  i  "  the  1 1  Mm, 

at  aot  all !    Such  is  Dr.  Ps 

&rd  for  the  word  of  God!''  such  th 
dinar  which  he  employs.     On  such  Blight 

pretexts  as  these  Dr.  P.  founds  the  grave  accusa- 
tion tgainst  us  of  ua  disregard  for  the  word  of 

God."     Believing,  as  we  do.  that  uthe  whole  word 

of  God  is  of  use  to  direct  us  in  prai<    as  well  as 

in  prs  is  no  more  profane  to  regard  some 

of  the  Psalms  as  not  intended  to  be  sung  by 

the  Jews  in  their  public  worship,  than  to  regard 

their  numerous  other  songs  spoken  and  sung  by 

•lurch,  as  not  now  to  be  sung — which  is  Dr. 

I  »ctrine.     Besides  all  this — if  the  titles  of  the 

i         as  prove  that  they  must  all  be  sung,  as  Dr. 

P.  reasons,  do  not  the  express  command  and  cx- 

8    of   2d   Chronic!   -    :  .ove    that   the 

11  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah"  must  be  Bung,    M 

Jeremiah  lamented  for  Josiah;   and  all  the  sir 

men  and  the  rii  men  -pake  of  Josiah  in  their 

lamentations  to  this  <ln/.  and  made  them  an  OIIDI- 

LBL:  and,  behold,  they  are  written  in 

•   •  This  is  mneh  better  authority 

of  the  term  Ptafcu,     El  appears 

■■.    that   the    t; 

and  particular,  of  the  "book  of  Psalms91  do  not 

prove  that  they  were  all  sung  in  Divine  worship 


118  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

by  the  Jews.  And  if  the  author  of  the  "  Letters' 
has  sinned  in  suggesting  this  truth,  he  is  at  least 
in  excellent  company.  Thus  Dr.  Joseph  Angus, 
in  his  "  Bible  Hand-Book,"  uses  the  following 
language  :  "  Most  of  the  pieces  were  intended  not 
only  to  express  religious  feeling,  but  to  be  sung 
devotionally  in  public  service."*  "Most  of  the 
pieces'9 — not  all.  Yet  Dr.  P.  says  this  is  "  loose 
theology,"  and  "  a  disregard  for  the  word  of  God." 

VIII.  Dr.  P's.  "reverence"  for  the  Word. 

The  reviewer  elsewhere  repeats  the  grave  accu- 
sation of  aa  disregard  for  the  word  of  inspiration," 
and  in  more  emphatic  language.  Thus,  along 
with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  the  author  of  the 
"Letters"  is  charged  with  "sentiments  utterly 
inconsistent  with  due  reverence  for  the  word  of 
God."  And  he  exclaims,  "  Shame  on  the  minister 
of  the  gospel" — "  Shame  on  the  reverend  Synod !" 

The  horrid  crime  which  has  so  vexed  the  review- 
er's righteous  soul,  is  this:  "The  ' Letters'  state 
that  there  are  portions  of  the  inspired  writings 
wThich  no  minister  of  common  sense  ever  reads  from 
the  pulpit,  or  uses  asva  text  for  a  sermon  !"  This 
fact  is  believed  to  be  a  strong  defence  of  the  Pres- 

*  This  learned  work  is  highly  recommended  by  Prof. 
Jacobus,  u  as  a  guide  for  the  class  room" — "  it  makes  a  great 
advance,"  he  says,  "upon  Home  as  an  outline  of  Biblical 
science." 


LTSM1NTS.  H9 

bjterian  theory,  which  omits  some  parts  of  the 
Psalms  from  our  -;  ,    "Readii  g  the 

Scri]  -  a  part  of  Divine  worship  as  really 

I  the  omission  of  parts  of  the 
Psalms  in  the  one  case  is  just  as  proper  at 

ion  of  parts  of  the  other  Scriptures  in  the  other. 
The  parts  referred  to  are  a  few  texts  in  the  Leviti- 
cal  law..  To  utter  such  a  statement,  however,  Dr. 
P.  denounces  as  "  inconsistent  with  due  reverence 
for  the  word  of  God."  But  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
him'  serious  in  the  matter.  Take  for  example, 
Deut.  23  :  1.  We  quote  from  the  Latin  Vulgate  : 
hitrabit  cunuehus,  attritls  vel  amputate  te$tu 
culis  aut  abscisso  veretro,  ccclcsiam  Domini.  Truly 
Dr.  P.  must  be  hardly  pressed  in  argument,  since 
he  is  driven  to  defend  such  a  passage  as  "profitable'' 
to  be  read  to  the  congregation  or  used  as  a  text 
for  a  sermon ! 

That  there  is  no  "irreverence"  in  assuming  the 
position  of  the  "  Letters,"  can  be  shown  thus: 
The  word  of  Grod  is  perfect,  as  are  all  his  works 
of  nature,  which'  are  fearfully  and  wonderfully 
Yet  our  fallen  and  corrupt  state  renders 
i  some  instances  a  Christian  duty, 
as  iii  dress.     Just  so  with  a  very  f 

:>rd  of  God.     They  arc  for  private  use.     If 
I  publicly  to  the  Jews,  it  was  at  a 
y  of  manners  and  in  B 


120  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

different  state  of  society.  But  the  progress  of 
refinement  and  delicacy  of  sentiment  under  the  gos- 
pel has  made  some,  yea,  many  things  inexpedient 
to  us,  which  were  proper  to  the  Jews.  For  abun- 
dant proofs,  read  the  Levitical  law.  We  find  no 
such  texts  as  the  one  above  quoted,  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. The  exigencies  of  his  argument,  however, 
evidently  drove  Dr.  P.  to  assume  a  position  which 
on  further  reflection  he  will  probably  concede  to 
be  practically  indelicate,  if  not  worse.  We  have 
already  said  that  even  he  dare  not  make  such  an 
experiment  upon  the  good  sense  and  Christian 
conscientiousness  of  his  congregation.  Dr.  P. 
may  mount  his  ecclesiastical  stilts  and  vapor  about 
"nice  sensibility,"  "refined  delicacy,  "transcen- 
dental purity,"  &c.  This  may  serve  a  purpose  in 
argument,  but  a  little  common  sense,  "  the  sober, 
second  thought,"  will  in  practice  lay  a  decent  re- 
straint even  upon  him. 

IX.   Dr.  P.  speaks  in  his  haste. 

Dr.,  P.  in  his  carelessness,  mistakes  the  "Let- 
ters" as  teaching  "  that  we  are  no  more  obligated 
to  sing  the  whole  of  the  150  Psalms  than  we  are 
to  sing  every  other  part  of  the  inspired  records." 
That  is  not  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  "  Letters." 
They  argue  that  we  are  no  more  obligated  to  sing 
the  whole  of  the  Psalms  (in  the  ordinance  of  praise) 


AND    MISSTATBMBN  121 

than  w«'  are  oblig  d  to  read  (not  Bing)  the  whole 
of  the   Bible  from  the  pulpit,  in  the  ice  of 

public  instruction.     Dr.  P.,  like  a  much  greater 
ami  better  man,  sometj  a  things  u  i 

A  quarterly  reviewer  and  grave  professor  ought 

ler  Bingular  illustration 
of  the  review  lent   inac- 

curacy, is  as  follows:   "The  great  question/1  he 
says,  "is,   Ha  Divine  appointment  for  the 

.'  the  devotional  comp  of  uninspired 

men  in  th     warshi  If"     Dr.  P.  of  course 

irs  in  the  negative.     But  does  he  i 
ia    D  ship,  the  prayer  and  propheci 

Balaam,  recorded  Num  :  7—24  ? 

•  rea  I  th  of  the 

people?  i  he  will  Bay,  Balaam  wasro- 

'.     Well,  then    take  the    e  -  of  Job's 

friends,  of  whom  God  Bays,  "Ye  have  not  sj 
of  me  tht*  thing  which  is  right."     Or  take  th 

►na  of  the  New  Testament  "devils,'1  that  Je- 
sus was  the  true  M-  ssi  th,  4*  the  Holy  One  of  ( 

Dr.»P.  never  read  these  pass  "the 

public  I  >  >d  ':"     Th  in  here  he  commits 

n/ sin  of  using  "the  compositions  of  unin- 

i  men,"  yea,  of  <L  w&,  in  the  worship  of  I 
And  in  that  they 

[positions'1 — ci 
of  "  the  devils"  were  not  !     Th 
n 


122  DR.    P's.    PERSONALITIES 

this,  and  yet  he  intimates  to  us  the  danger  of  offer- 
ing "  strange  fire,"  if  we  use  in  worship  the  com- 
positions of  uninspired  men — if  we  dare  to  sing 
such  a  hymn  as, 

All  hail  the  power  of  Jesus'  name ! 

Let  angels  prostrate  fall ; 
Bring  forth  the  royal  duidem, 

And  crown  him  "Lord  of  all. 

Nor  is  this  all.  A  literal  interpretation  of  the  re- 
viewer's language  as  above  quoted,  would  plainly 
exclude  from  "  the  worship  of  God"  all  his  ser- 
mons and  all  his  extempore  prayers — for  obviously 
both  classes  are  "  the  compositions  of  an  uninspired 
man!"  He  doubtless  designed  to  limit.his  remark 
to  singing  praise  as  one  form  of  "worship" — but 
instead  of  that,  he  employs  terms  which  if  prac- 
tically applied,  must  shut  his  own  mouth  and  that 
of  all  his  ministerial  brethren  as  to  preaching  and 
prayer — and  confine  the  instructions  of  the  pulpit 
simply  to  the  utterance  of  the  letter  of  the  Holy 
Scripture.  Dr.  P.  may  certainly  confess  with  Da- 
vid— "  I  said  it  in  my  haste !" 

X.  Dr.  P's.  great  Inconsistency. 

Similar  precipitancy  and  consequent  error  ap- 
pear in  the  reviewer's  comments  upon  the  action 
of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  1793.  Her 
highest  judicatory  is  quoted  sanctioning  Rouse 
as   "a   safe    translation."     Dr.   P.   calls    this  an 


AND    MISSTAUMBS  £&.  123 

"explicit  statement,  which,"  he  Bays,  "has  been 
before  the  public  for  more  than  half  a  century/' 
lie  thru  adds,  "  In  all  thai  has  fc  >  n  writh  n  on  the 
subject,  the  same  position  has  been  occupied." 
saf*  translation!"  Bat  is  that  the  Bame  as  ; 
"that  as  a  true  and  literal  translation  of  the  origi- 
nal, it  (Rouse)  is  decidedly  superior  to  any  other 
in  the  English  language  :  And  does  that  mean 
merely  that  "it  (Rouse)  is  a  safe  translation  V 
Here  evidently  the  reviewer  spake  in  the  Bame 
l*  haste'1  with  which  he  has  written  his  review. 
In  his  judgment,  "  Rouse's  paraphrase'1  is  not 
y  "a  safe  translation,"  but  "superior  as  a 
literal  translation"  to  the  prose  version 
in  our  English  Bible.-!  Yet  he  now  assures  us  in 
his  review,  that  this  outrageous  st.  incut  is  i%  the 
same"  3  ly  merely  that  "  it  (Rouse)  is  a  safe 

translation  !" 

Another  hasty  announcment  is  this — "Accord- 
ing to  him  (author  of  the  "  Letters")  there  IS  (in 
llou><  kissiOn   of  much  important  matter." 

"  The  ground"  he  adds,  w-of  this  charge  (against 
that  the  titles  prefixed  to  many  of  the 
Psalma  are  omitted/1    Observe;  Dr.  J*,  says  "tJit 
ground  of  the  c  f  omission.'1     But  it' he  had 

read  the  "  Letters'1  with  any  oare,  he  most  have 

und  of  the  oha 

*  Pr-  -alraody.  p.  117. 


124  DR.    P's.    PERSONALITIES 

against  Rouse.  Numerous  other  specifications  be- 
sides the  omission  of  the  titles  are  adduced  in  the 
"  Letters,"  but  the  reviewer  wisely  lets  them  alone 
and  "passes  by  on  the  other  side." 

XL  Dr.  P's.  "  hasty  Logic." 

The  following  is  a  specimen  of  the  reviewer's 
hash/  logic,  as  well  as  hasty  language.  "Do  you 
admit,"  he  inquires,  "that  these  songs  were  given 
to  the  Church  to  be  used  in  the  worship  of  God?" 
Certainly  we  do.  Presbyterians  gladly  worship 
Giod  by  reading  the  Psalms  in  public  and  private, 
and  repeating  them  in  prayer.  But  if  Dr.  P's. 
question  refers  only  to  ivorship  by  singing,  we 
give  "the  direct  answer"  he  demands  as  follows: 
Read  the  "Letters  on  Psalmody,"  pp.  77-79,  and 
you  will  find  it.  For  the  present,  we  say  we  have 
never  doubted  what  Dr.  P.  asserts,  viz.,  that  2 
Chron.  29  :  30  proves  most  conclusively  that  "the 
Church  of  God  (under  the  Jewish  dispensation) 
praised  the  Lord  in  the  use  of  the  Psalms  written 
by  David,"  and  Dr.  P.  might  have  added,  "in  the 
use  of  the  Psalms  written  by  Asaph  the  seer" — for 
both  David  and  Asaph  are  included  in  that  text. 
But  if  Dr.  P.  will  look  back  just  six  verses  in  the 
same  chapter  (2  Chron.  chap.  29)  he  will  read  as 
follows  :  "And  he  (Hezekiah)  set  the  Levites  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord  with  cymbals,  with  psalteries,  and 


AND    MISSTATEMENTS.  125 

with  harps,  according  to  the  eommrnndtnent  of  Da- 
vid and  uf  Gad)  the  kin< fa  seer,   and  Nathan  the 

prophet:  pob  bo  was  thm  dommahdmbhi  oy  the 

Lord  1JY  BIS  PR0PHHT8."  And  when  the  i'ounda- 
tion  of  the  second  temple  was  laid  (Emra,  chap. 
3:10),  we  read — "They  set  the  priests  in  their 
apparel  with  trumpets,  and  the  Levites  the  sons 
of  Asaph  with  cymbals,  t<>  praise  the  Lord  after 
the  ardinand  of  David  king  of  Israel." 

Now  W€  take  up  the  argument  of  the  reviewer 
just  where  he  has  seen  proper  to  drop  it;  and  in 
the  use  of  much  the  same  language,  we  ask,  u  Do 
yon  admit  that  these  musical  instruments  were 
given  to  the  Church  to  he  used  in  God'.-  worship! 
To  this  question  we  would  like  to  have  a  direct 
answer*' — especially  as  in  1  Chron.  16  :  4-  M  these 
trumpets,  harps,  cymbals,  v^c  are  called  musical 
1X8X1  pmehts  oi  GpD,"  and  again,  "instrumi 
of  music  of  I  I  WHICH  David  tiii:  kl\«;  had 

madi:  ro  praise  the  Lord."  Thus  it  is  demonstra- 
ted, to  copy  again  the  language  of  the  reviewer, 
*kthat  these  harps,  cymbals,  trumpet.-,  fcc,,  were 
ceptablyby  the  Church  in  public  worship" — 
they  were  modi  by  David,  "the  sweet  Psalmist 

used  after  "  the  ordinance  of 
i  id" — "  therefore  thej     •■  n   D  vim  ly  • 

"1  Is  Dr.  P.,  *•  the 


126  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

second  commandment  forbiddeth  the  worship  of 
God  in  any  way  not  appointed  in  his  word." 

Now  mark  the  perfection  of  Dr.  P's.  logic  : 
1.  The  foregoing  text  (2  Chron.  29:30)  proves 
that  "  the  Church  (under  the  Jewish  dispensation) 
used  these  songs  (written  by  David  and  Asaph, 
from  seventy  to  eighty-five  of  the  whole  book)  with 
Divine  approbation."  Ergo,  we  have  the  same 
Divine  appointment  for  the  remainder  of  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  Psalms.  In  other  words,  the  use 
of  those  written  by  "  David  and  Asaph"  demon- 
strates the  same  use  of  all  the  rest,  though  a  num- 
ber of  them  were  composed  long  after  both  were 
dead;  and  some  during  and  after  the  Babylonish 
captivity !  2.  u  The  words  of  David  and  Asaph 
the  seer,"  says  the  reviewer,  "Hezekiah  the  king 
commanded  the  Levites  to  sing  in  praise  to  the 
Lord."  "This  historical  fact,*'  he  adds,  "proves 
most  conclusively  that  the  Psalms  are  of  Divine 
appointment."  But  u  the  same  commandment  of 
the  Lord  by  his  prophets"  just  before,  (chap. 
29  :  25)  "  does  not  prove  that  cymbals,  psalteries 
and  harps  are  of  Divine  appointment  in  the  Church 
of  God  !"  Hezekiah's  commandment,  according 
to  the  reviewer's  logic,  is  good  proof  in  favor  of 
the  continued  use  of  u  the  songs,"  but  altogether 
futile  and  contemptible  as  proof  for  "the  instru- 
ments of  God"  as  suitable  to  be  continued  in  the 


ANh    lfI88TATBMBNT8.  127 

f  the  Church!  Copying  the  reviewer's  in- 
imitable logic,  we  Bay — uas  cymbals,  psalti 
harps  and  trumpets  are  instruments  which  God 
commanded  his  Church  to  employ  in  his  worship, 
ami  which  he  gave  to  his  Church  for  thai  express 
purp<  -  .  fan    we  conclude  that  it  is  his  will 

that  l these  instruments  oj  God,1  dike  the  'day 
of  the  Lord1  and  the  'Supper  of  the  Lord9) should 
be  still  used  in  his  worship/1  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  in  rejecting  these  instruments,  Dr.  P.  ventures 
to  improve  upofa  David,  and  pretends  to  be  wiser 
than  hifl  Maker  !  And  as  to  the  second  command- 
ment, it  is  nowhere  ! 

XII.  Dr.  P.  on  "the  Soul  in  the  GftAVN." 

The  reviewer  in  celebrating  the  praises  of  what  he 

calls  u  our  metrical  version,"  u  our  true  and  literal 
translation"  (meaning  u  Rouse's  paraphra 
Bays  that  "in  §&me  instances  it  is  more  faithful 
than  the  prose  version  of  our  Bibles."  The  only 
example  he  gives  in  this  connection  is  Ps.  16:  10. 
*'  For  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell."  In 
Rouse,  he  says,  "  it  is  in  the  grave9* — which  he 
thinks  u  decidedly  the  better  translation."  Bui 
SO  author*  who  is  quoted  approvingly  by  Dr.  ]\ 
lays:  "Hell  is  here  to  be  taken  in  its  wide  old 
English  sense,    as   corresponding   to   the   Hebrew 

♦Alexander    on  iIh-  Psalm-. 


128  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

Sheol  and  the  Greek  Hades,  i.  e.  the  invisible 
world  or  state  of  the  dead."  This  is  plainly  the 
true  sense — for  how  could  David's  soul  (not  his 
body)  be  left  in  the  grave?  Dr.  Watts  has  given 
the   correct  rendering: 

Though  in  the  dust  I  lay  my  head, 

Yet,  gracious   God,  thou'  wilt  not  leave 
My  soul  forever  with  the  dead. 

How  much  more  accurate,  theologically  consid- 
ered, is  this  than  that  of  Rouse  and  the  reviewer, 
which  runs  thus  : 

Because  my  soul  in  grave  to  dwell 
Shall  not  be  left  by  thee. 

"My  soul  in  grave  to  dwell."  Does  Dr.  P. 
adopt  the  "principles"  which  must  have  governed 
Rouse  in  this  case?  If  he  does,  then  he  teaches, 
(1.)  That  the  soul  goes  down  into  the  grave  with 
the  body.  (2.)  That  the  human  soul  of  our  blessed 
Lord  was  thus  buried  with  his  body.  (3.)  That 
"  his  heart  was  glad"  because  his  "soul  .was  not 
suffered  to  remain  in  the  grave!"  These  are  the 
"principles"  which  by  singing  and  approving 
Rouse,  Dr.  P.  sanctions.  Is  not  this  "loose 
theology?"  If  any  further  proof  of  Dr.  P's  odd 
mistakes  be  necessary,  we  find  it  in  Dr.  Scott's 
admirable*  Commentary.  He  says:  "Both  the 
Hebrew  Sheol  and  the  Greek  Hades  denote  the 
state  of  man  when  no  longer  seen  on  earth.  When 
spoken  of  the  body,  they  signify  the  grave;  when 


AND    MI8BTATBMSNT&  189 

of  the  sou?,  they  refer  to  that  state  in  which  the 
soul  is  without  the  body."    "These  wordi 
mkhade*  an  >■  J,"  adds  Dr.  Scott,  a  when 

the  burial  or  grave  of  an  individual  is  spoken  of." 
•*s;  '."'  be  I'M-,  quoting  Campbell,  "  is  never 
rendered  by  the  Greek  taphoe  or  mnema,  a  tomb 
or  grave,  nor  construed  with  thaptn%  the  Greek 
term  for  fturjf." 

These  authorities  are  surely  sufficient  to  prove 
that  both  TCouse  and  Dr.  P.  have  made  a  singular 
mistake  in  burying  the  soul  of  either  David  or 
Christ,  the  type  or  the  anti-type,  in  the  same  grave 
with  the  body ! 

Kill.     Mil.     A's.    DlSINOBNU0U8NS8$ 

We  must  not  omit  an  additional  specimen  of  the 
reviewer's  convulsive  struggles  to  sustain  his  sink- 
ing cause.     u  Mark."  he  e  iys,  ••  the  disingenuous- 
nesa  of  the  author  of  the  'Letters.''      This 
serious  charge,  and  from  a    "grave  and   reverend 

'iior"  ought  to  have  a  solid  foundation  in  fact. 
Let  us  see. 

"  Letters"  quote  Dr.  P.  and  another  wri- 
ter, as  follows:  "LOcethcproi  of  the  Bible, 
it  Rouse's  paraphrase]  is  remarkably  literal" — 
"it  is  :i  literal  and  true  version/1  4'lt  was  adopted 
upon  the  principle  that  it  is  a  faithful  transla- 
tion.                     I    proft   translation      *     *     *     it 


130  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

is  substantially  correct  and  faithful — both  are  to 
be  regarded  as  the  word  of  God."  From  these 
and  similar  forms  of  expression,  the  author  of  the 
"  Letters"  very  naturally  inferred  that  "our  prose 
version"  of  the  Bible  was  indicated  as  one  of  the 
accepted  standards  or  tests  of  the  literalness  and 
excellence  of  Rouse,  and  of  its  containing  "the. 
genuine  songs  of  inspiration."  "A  test"  is  defin- 
ed in  English  lexicons  to  be,  "  that  with  which 
any  thing  is  compared,  in  order  to  prove  its  genu- 
ineness." And  it  is  obvious  that  in  the  extracts 
from  Dr.  P's.  writings  given  above,  Rouse  is  favor- 
ably compared  with  "the  prose  version,"  in  order 
to  prove  it  to  be  the  genuine  "word  of  God." 
The  obvious  propriety  of  using  this  u  test"  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  Dr.  P.  himself  will  admit  that 
"our  prose  version"  is  "the  best  translation  in  the 
world" — that  it  is  "our  most  faithful  transla- 
tion"— and  "of  all  versions  it  must  in  general  be 
accounted  the  most  excellent."  Such,  then,  is 
"the  head  and  front"  of  our  offending.  We  said 
that  Dr.  P.  had  offered  the  prose  version  as  a  test 
of  the  literalness  and  excellence  of  Rouse's  para- 
phrase. But  the  reviewer,  on  such  grounds  as  this, 
utters  his  kind  and  Christian  charge :  "Mark  the 
disingenuousness  of  the  author  of  the  '  Letters/  ' 
Now  if  we  had  in  view  only  the  advancement  of 
our  cause  and  the  defeat  and  dishonor  of  his,  we 


AXD    KI89TATBMBNT&  131 

should  delight  to  witness  more  and  more  of  this 
sort  of  logic  !  We  should  thank  him  tor  thus  ex- 
po$ing  the  weakness  of  his  argument,  and  his  con- 
sequent loss  of  temper.  u Like  the  pn><e  ven 
— "like  die  prose  translation!"  "Both  are  the 
word  of  God  !"  If  this  is  not  the  same  as  offering 
the  "pr  se  rersion"  as  a  "test,"  what  words 
would  express  that  idea  I 

XIV.  Dr.  P.  ox  making  Songs  oi  Praise, 

But  there  is  one  argument  which  is  a  main  pil- 
lar in  the  reviewer's  logical  edifice,  and  which  he 
i  often  that  he  obviously  regards  it  as 
absolutely  conclusive.  aThe  question  is,"  he 
says,  "were  the  Scriptures  given  to  direct  us  how 
to  77?<7/;.  songs  of  praise?"  Again — "Prove  that 
we  have  authority  to  make  our  songs  of  praise, 
collecting  the  matter  of  them  from  the  whole  word 
of  God."  And  as  if  this  were  not  enough,  he 
prints  it  in  flaming  capital-  at  the  close  of  his  re- 
view— "Where  has  God  in  his  word  authorized 
any  uninspired  man  to  prepare  songs  of  praise  to 
be  employed  by  the  Church  in  the  worship  of 
In  reply  to  this  argument  SO  vauntingly 
and  repeatedly  pressed  upon  our  attention,  we 
ve  :  1.  It  is  formally  stated  and  refuted  in 
the  -  L  •  -,"  p.  157.  See  also  pp.  92,  98.  Dr. 
P.,   however,   very  prudently   M  passes   by  on   the 


132  DR.    p's.    PERSONALITIES 

other  side."  2.  Can  the  reviewer  show  any  ex- 
press authority  from  Scripture  to  make  sermons? 
We  have-the  command,  "  Preach  tue  word" — 
which  of  course  implies  that  our  discourses  must 
be  composed.  So  we  have  the  precept  to  "sing 
praises,"  and  the  inspired  examples  of  those  who 
composed  and  sung  other  songs  than  the  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  Psalms — and  those,  too,  composed 
very  much  as  we  compose  them,  as  to  their  mat- 
ter. And  this  of  course  implies  that  the  songs 
are  to  be  made.  It  may  be  said  that  we  have  no 
book  of  inspired  sermons,  but  have  a  book  of 
Psalms  ?  But  this  is  a  mistake.  The  book  of 
Ecclesiastes  is  a  book  of  sermons,  "  the  words 
of  the  Preacher."  And  a  large  part  of  the  pub- 
lic addresses  of  Moses,  Solomon,  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Job,  and  all  the  prophets  —  and  especially  the 
discourses  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  consists 
of  inspired  sermons.  Yet  Dr.  P.  "lays  all  these 
aside  as  useless,"  and  preaches  his  own  effusiors 
instead  of  the  productions  of  Infinite  Wisdom  ! 
3.  The  reviewer  proposes  a  false  issue,  when  he 
asks,  "  Where  has  God  authorized  any  uninspired 
man  to  prepare  songs  of  praise  for  the  Church?" 
Presbyterians  answer,  no  where  !  Our  doctrine 
is  that  individuals  may  employ  the  noble  poetical 
talents  with  which  the  "Author  of  every  good 
and  perfect  gift"  has  endowed  them,  in  compos- 


\\l>    MI8STATBMSS  133 

ing  hymns,  agreeably  to  the  i  sample  in  A.cte 
4:24  of  b  song  of  praise  gathered  partly  from 
Pa  2  and  partly  from  other  portions  of  the  sacred 
records.     But  u to  prepare  these  Psalms  for  the 

Church."  is  not  the  prerogative  nor  the  privilege 
of  "any  uninspired  man,"  which  Dr.  P«  insinuates 
to  be  the    Presbyterian   doctrine      This   is   the 

province  of  the  Church  herself,  as  represented    by 
her  supreme  judicatory.     She  examines,  ami  where 
f.umd  needful,  ami  fids  these  productions,  ami  then 
g  her  sanction  to  their  adoption  in  public  wor- 
ship, JQ8t  as  the  Scottish  General  Assembly  Banc- 
But,  replies  Dr.    P.,   "there  is  no 
:  the  iniluences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 

ring  these  Psalms."*  But  are 
there  not  precious  and  abundant  promises  to  THE 
Church  ob  Christ,  that  the  presence  of  the  Holy 

Spirit  shall  be  witli  her  public  councils?  Has  lie  not* 
promise    i  to  be  with  hei  "  to  the  end  of  the  world  V 

Ami  have   we   not  ;    as   good  groun 

-  gracious  presence  with  the  collective 

.      when  die  Church   is  amending 

and  authorizing   th  ae  songs  of  praise,  a-  when 

I  men  of  tin-  United  Presbyterian  per- 

i  '  '     i  v  ■  use  to  their  i 

ting  into  their  hearts  the  sentiments 

ill  feel  when  uttering  the  Language 

'salmodj,  i>.  85. 

]> 


134  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

of  the  paraphrase  ?  The  preacher  who  explains 
the  Psalm  may  be  an  unconverted  person — he  may 
be  worse — a  heretic,  an  Arian  of  Ulster,  a  drunk- 
ard. But  in  the  best  possible  case,  suppose  him 
to  be  a  true  Christian  and  a  faithful  pastor ;  is  it 
certain  that  the  Psalm  as  explained  by  him  and 
sung  by  the  people,  will  be  equally  in  harmony 
with  athe  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  and  under 
his  direction  and  by  his  aid  as  the  Psalm  ex- 
plained  by  the  collective  wisdom  and  piety  of  the 
Church,  and  the  hymns  which  she  sanctions  as 
agreeable  to  the  inspired  oracles?  Surely  this  ques- 
tion  is  easily  solved.  4.  "  We  have  no  authority, " 
says  Dr.  P.,  uto  make  songs  of  praise,  collecting 
their  matter  from  the  whole  word  of  God."  This 
proposition,  as  explained  by  himself,  means,  that 
we  have  no  authority  to  sing  in  worship  aught  but 
•  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms,  and  these  in  a 
literal  version.  But  without  repeating  what  has 
already  been  proved,  in  regard  to  the  paraphrastic 
nature  of  Rouse,  or  inquiring  too  closely  who  made 
his  " paraphrase,"  we  adduce  the  authority  of  an 
intellectual  giant,  an  original  Seceder,  the  cele- 
brated Ralph  Erskine.  This  distinguished  di- 
vine, the  chief  leader  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Scotland,  plainly  contradicts  Dr.  P.  Thus 
in  the  preface  to  his  poetical  paraphrase  of  "  the 
Song  of  Solomon,"    Erskine  says  in  defence  of 


AND    MISSTATEMENTS.  135 

"his  mmg  upon  this  subject,"   and  of  "  his  little 

book  to  help  the  Church  to  ding  away  her  sor- 
rows" — "Wl  have  a  DlVINl  PRECEPT  too  much 
forgotten  and  neglected,  in  Ephes.  5  :  18,  li>  ;nid 
Collos.  3:16."  "That  you  may  be  able,"  he 
adds,   "to  ring  it  (the  song)  with  understanding, 

I  have  endeavored  to  lay  open  its  mysteries"  — 
and  he  further  says,  that  k*  lie  had  east  his  para- 
phrase in  the  mould  of  common  metre,"  for 
the  convenience  of  singing.  Here  it  will  be  seen, 
Ralph  Erskine  interprets  Paul's  exhortation  to 
sing  u  Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,'  as 
a  Divine  precept  to  "make  songs  of  praise'1 
out  of  the  Song  of  Solomon  !*  Thus  he  answers 
Dr.  Ps.  confident  "  question"—"  Were  the  Scrip- 
tures given  to  direct  us  how  to  make  songs  of 
praise,  collecting  the  matter  from  the  whole  word 
of  God  '.'"  lie  will  thus  perceive  that  his  question 
in  flaming  capitals,  does  not  "remain  unanswer- 
ed.'' It  was  answered  by  one  of  the  most  cele- 
brated fathers  of  the  United  Presbyterian  body. 
And  until  Ralph  Erskine's  interpretation  of 
Collos.  3:16  and  Ephes.  5:18,19  is  proved 
false,  we  may  safely  match  his  judgment  against 
that  of  this  reviewer. 

•With   what    astonishmont  WOVld   Er>kin- 
the  following  announcement;     u  The  metrical  rendering  of 
other  9  iriptnre    *    *    *    very  gr*at1j 

the  cause  of  truth  and   righteousness!" — tilakie'.*  Phil 
of  Sectarianism,   p.  7  4. 


136  DR.    P's.    PERSONALITIES 

But  the  reviewer,  if  he  had  ever  seen  it,  treats 
the  statement  of  llalph  Erskine  with  great  con- 
tempt. u  Such  a  supposition,"  he  says,  "  is  a 
pure  gratuitous  assumption."  u  It  cannot  be 
proved,"  he  adds,  u  that  the  apostle  (in  Eph. 
5:19  and  Coll.  3  :  16)  has  reference  to  the  devo- 
tional compositions  of  uninspired  men" — "  it  is 
altogether  inconclusive."  But  Erskine  thought 
it  wTas  no  "  gratuitous  assumption"  at  all,  but  that 
those  texts  are  a  plain  Divine  precept  for  ma- 
king and  singing  what  Dr.  P.  calls  "  uninspired 
compositions."  Whether  Erskine,  with  no  special 
end  to  subserve  but  the  glory  of  God  and  the  spir- 
itual ccmfort  of  the  Church — or  Dr.  P.  with  all  his 
sectarian  prejudices  and  prepossessions,  were  the 
more  likely  to  form  a  correct  judgment  in  the  case, 
we  leave  to  every  candid  and  sober  mind.  It  is 
certain  that  Erskine's  "  paraphrase  of  the  Song  of 
Solomon,"  for  which  he  thus  found  a  "  Divine  pre- 
cept," is  no  more  an  inspired  song  than  the  great 
body  of  the  psalms  and  hymns  adopted  by  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  It  is  not  surprising,  there- 
fore, that  the  reyiewer,  in  this  instance  also,  finds 
it  most  convenient  to  employ  strong  contempt- 
uous denial,  instead  of  proof.  But  when  he  shall 
have  demonstrated  that  Ralph  Erskine  was  guilty 
of  a  great  blunder,  let  him  next  try  his  hand  at 
convicting  "  the  United  Presbyterian  Church"  of 


AND    MISSTATKMKN  I-.  137 

Scotland   of    the    same    kk  gratuitous   assumption.' 

For  in  the  title  page  of  their  u  hymn  book91  of  near 
500  pieces,  they  quote  these  *ery  words  of  the 

[e  (Coll.  .°>  :  1»J  an<l  Kph.  5  :  18)  as  fcheif  au- 
thority. Si.rt)j-i;r,  of  these  United  Pi  isbyterian 
kymiifl  are  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Watts;  and  more 
than  120  are  the  >ame  substantially  with  those 
Presbyterians  use.  Like  Ralph  Erskine,  there- 
fore, "the  United  Presbyterian  Church"  of  Scot- 
land claim  to  have  discovered  express  ik  Divine 
precept  for  mal;in<j  songs  of  praise  for  the 
Church." 

XV.    Other  Psalms  and   Hymns. 

In  reference  to  the  other  u Psalms  and  hvmns" 
alluded  to  by  Paul,  Dr.  P.  says,  "  When  the  au- 
thor of  the  '  Letters'  informs  us  where  these 
Psalms,  hymns,  kc,  are  to  be  found,  we  may  be 
prepared  to  answer  his  question,"  viz.,  "  are  they 
unfit  to  be  sung."  "  If  Mr.  A*,"  he  add-.  "  will 
produce  those  to  which  the  apostle  directed  the 
ion  of  his  brethren,  we  shall  receive  them 
cordially  and  use  them  cheerfully." 

Ir  might   he  sufficient,  in  reply,  to  refer  Dr.  P. 

to  the  Presbytery  of  original  Seceders  in  Scotland, 

illy  to  their  greatest  man,  Ralph  Erskine, 

and  to  the  "  United  Presbyterian  body,"  also  of 

Scotland.     As  already  quoted,  these  are  good  au- 

12* 


188  DR.  P*Sk  personalities 

thorities  on  the  question — what  did  Paul  mean  by 
"Psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs."  Dr.  P. 
need  not  be  told  that  large  portions  of  both  Testa- 
ments (as  well  as  "  the  Song  of  Solomon")  are 
written  in  strains  of  the  most  sublime  and  beauti- 
ful poetry — often  the  very  Psalms  and  songs  in 
which  the  most  eminent  saints  praised  God  and 
called  upon  the  Church  to  praise  him.  Thus  Isaiah, 
chap,  5,  "  Now  will  I  sing  to  my  well  beloved  a 
song  of  my  beloved."  Again,  look  at  chap.  25, 
"In  that  day  (the  times  of  the  gospel)  shall  this 
song  be  sung,"  &c.  So  also  the  song  of  Hezekiah, 
chap.  38.  And  in  v.  20  that  pious  king  says — 
"  We  will  sing  my  songs  to  the  stringed  instru- 
ments all  the  days  of  my  life  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord."  These  were  surely  not  the  Psalms  of  Da- 
vid. See  also  "the  prayer  of  Habakkuk"  (chap. 
3)  directed  to  "  the  chief  singer  on  my  stringed 
instruments,"  just  as  many  of  David's  Psalms 
are.  Such  are  merely  specimens — but  similar 
admirable  examples  are  thickly  scattered  through 
many  parts  of  the  Bible,  especially  the  prophecies, 
book  of  Job,  Proverbs  and  Lamentations,  where 
they  glitter  like  starry  spangles  in  a  winter's  night. 
But  perhaps  we  can  in  no  method  better  illus- 
trate the  Divine  excellence  of  such  passages,  and 
their  fitness  to  compose  a  part  of  the  high  praises 
of  Israel's  God,  than  by  the  following  contrast : 


IND    MISSTi : 


A  man  m  -  -  had 

hi  estinui 

\  ..  _  lifted  up 

Hi-.. 

Bilt    all   .it    01 

And  ham 
.  >wn  the  carved  work  th< 

II.-  n  to  foil ; 

•  in  he  «li'l  pal 
A  frhame  perpetual. 

The  land  in  plenty  brought  forth 

of  1 
lice 
In  all  their 

And  thus  th-  i  their 

•  vainly  changed  they. 

Tha  :..iv. 

-    my    trashing  pot  —  my 

I'll  <>vor  Edom  ti. 
Ovrr  the  land  of  Palestine 
I  will  in  triumph 

\ 
For  he  hath  merci 
-.  the  king  of*  I     - 

3  a  rely  shall 
Thy  tender  Utile 
Who  shall  lay  bold 
them 
Shall  dash 

<»  serve:  According  to  Ralph  Erskine,  uthe 
United  Presbyterian  Church,"  the  "  Free  Church," 
and  the  ••  Established  Church"  of  Scotland,  we  have 

Divine  authority  to  versify  and  sing  this  beautiful 
song   in    Isaiah.      M  Not    so,"  says    this  rev.: 
wWe   plead   for   the   exclusive   use   of  the   book   of 


I>U  LB,  Ch  M'.    IX 
,  ihat  day  thon  si 

hough 
thon  wast  angry  with  me,  thine 
-  turned  away,  and  thou 
me. 


Id,  God   is  my   salvation : 

trust,   and   1 
for    tin-  L  »i»   JErU  >YAH   is    my 

- 


shall   ye 


Ami  in  that  day    shall 

the  Lo*Dj  call  apon  his 
•  hi>  doings  among 
make  mention   that 


;•.  for  he  hath 

this    is 
urth. 


•.  thou  inhabi- 

I 


140  DK,    p's.    PERSONALITIES 

Psalms."*  To  sing  hundreds  of  such  verses  as  those 
copied  from  Rouse  would  be  highly  acceptable  in 
praise  to  God;  but  the  sublime  and  beautiful 
conceptions  of  Isaiah  are  not  appointed  in  his 
word.f  To  sing  them  would  be  "a  disregard  of 
Divine  authority" — u  would  subject  "the  guilty  to 
the  displeasure  of  Heaven  as  certainly  as  similar 
conduct  did  the  presumptuous  sons  of  Aaron  !" 
Besides,  to  all  such  arguments  as  the  foregoing,  Dr. 
P.  has  one  all-sufficient  and  never-failing  response — 
"  The  Psalms  of  David  were  given  to  the  Church 
to  be  sung" — "  we  have  no  authority  to  sing  any 
other  !" 

It  is  a  plain  dictate  of  common  sense,  that  to 
versify  such  passages  of  the  other  Scriptures  as 
Is.  12.  is  no  more  "  to  make  songs  of  praise"  than 
to  versify  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms  after 
the  manner  of  Rouse.  Such  sublime  and  beautiful 
portions  of  the  sacred  records  are  songs  of  praise 
already  made,  and  whether  they  be  found  in  the 
New  or  the  Old  Testament,  they  are  admirably 
suited  to  the  worship  of  God.  It  would  be  easy 
to  collect  twice  the  number  of  the  Psalms,  of  such 

*  Pressly  on  Psalmody,  p.  69. 

f  The  Hymn  Book  of  the  "  United  Presbyterian  Church" 
of  Scotland,  contains  not  less  than  seventy-five  of  these  beau- 
tiful pieces  from  Isaiah,  versified  for  public  and  private 
worship,  and  the  Free  and  Established  Churches  have  twelve 
of  the  same  "corruptions"  among  their  "paraphrases." 


AND    MISSTATEMENTS,  141 

admirahle  compositions.  But  is  it  lawful  to  use 
them  in  praising  ( tod  ?  What  Bays  the  Holy  Ghost 
by  the  writers  ol  many  of  those  passag  3:  " 
unto  the  Lord" — "In  that  day  (gospel  day) 
shall  this  bong  be  sung"—  -*•  Sing  unto  the  L  nrd 
a  new  song"  (Is. 42:10),  compared  with  Rev. 
6  :  9,  "And  they  sung  n  /.  Thou  art  worthy 

to  take  the  book,"  && — "  In  that  day  (gospel  -lay) 
sing  ye  unto  her,"  fcc. — "Now  will   I  Bing  to  my 
Beloved  a  song  of  my  Beloved" — and   the  song 
follows.      Will   Dr.  P.  pretend  that  all   this  l 
to  the   Psalms  of  David,  and   to  them  alone? 

Hero  then,  as  Ralph  Erskine  said  of  the  other 
.    we  have    ua   Divine  precept"   to  do  what 
Dr.  P.  calls  k*  making  and  Binging  Bongs  of  pr 
which  are   not   among   the  one  hundred  and  fifty 
Ptalms. 

And  if  there  be  any  "disregard  of  Divine  au- 
thority*' in  the  case,  it  is  the  crime  of  those  who, 
limiting  the  praises  of  the  Church  to  one  '  oo/r.  thus 
bast  contempt  upon  such  express  Divine  pre< 
as  those  we  have  quoted,  and  Bet  at  nought  the 
example  and  inspired  productions  of  many  or  the 
eminent  and    highly  gifted   penmen   of  the 

Holy    Ghost.       It   :-  i  repeat  the  old    plea  — 

"Ptoalms  are  songs  which  are  to  be  Bung," 

*•  we    iiave    DO    authority  to    sing   any   Other;"    hut 

we  think  the  authority  of  Isaiah  is  quite  b  iffl 

if  there  were  qo  Other. 


142  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES 

And  to  crown  all,  Dr.  P.,  when  speaking  of  the 
Psalms,  says,  u  These  divme  songs  abound  *  * 
with  urgent  calls  to  the  Church,  and  to  all 
classes  of  men,  to  engage  in  this  delightful  exer- 
cise." The  same  is  true  of  the  songs  of  Isaiah. 
It  therefore  follows,  that  u  their  peculiar  design 
is  the  celebration  of  God's  praise."  And  to  these 
may  be  added  the  affecting  song  of  David  upon 
the'death  of  Jonathan  and  Saul,  2  Sam.  1 — the 
song  of  Deborah — the  song  of  Hannah — the  song 
of  Mary  the  mother  of  our  Lord — and  of  Zacharias 
and  Elizabeth — the  song  of  the  angels  at  the  birth 
of  the  Saviour,  and  the  numerous  sublime  hymns 
of  praise  in  the  Revelation.  It  is  of  these  and 
scores  of  similar  beautiful  specimens  of  Divine 
poetry  in  the  Scriptures,  that  Ralph  Erskine  says, 
"The  design  was  proposed  to  me  of  making  the 
Scripture  songs  adapted  to  the  common  tunes,  so 
as  it  may  be  practicable  to  sing  them  as  we  do  the 
Psalms  of  David."  With  such  a  guide  we  think 
it  is  easy  to  point  out  the  "  Psalms,  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs"  to  which  Paul  alludes  in  Eph.  5 : 
19  and  Coll.  8:16. 

If  it  be  inquired,  why  were  David's  Psalms  col- 
lected into  a  separate  book,  unless  it  was  for  an 
exclusive  system  of  praise?  wre  answer,  because 
it  would  be  unwise  to  mingle  together  prose  and 
poetry,  occasional  songs  and  familiar  narratives. 


AND    MISSTATEMENT.-.  14-°, 

No  uninspired  writer  of  a  friend's  life  ever  does 
so.  Take  for  instance  the  life  of  Cowper  or  other 
Christian  poet  Al8  b  matter  of  course  his  poems 
are  grouped  together. 

XVI.  More  of  Dr.  Fa  Misstatement.-. 

The  reviewer  is  quite  astray  in  his  reference  to 
Dr.  Ralston,  whose  volume,  he  says,  received  the 
"endorsement  of  a  reverend  Synod,"  i.  e.  of  Pitts- 
burgh, and  advocated  "a  Psalmody  prepared  by 
men,  the  matter  of  which  they,  in  the  exercise  of 
their  own  discretion,  collected  from  the  New  Testa- 
But  here  Dr.  P.  betrays  his  usual  haste. 
Dr.  Ralston  (p.  32)  states  his  proposition  as  fol- 
low- :  M  li  [a  the  privilege  of  the  Church  to  draw 
her  songs  of  praise  from  BOTH  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testament,"  —  "and  to  enrich  them  well 
from  the  word  of  Christ."  This  differs  slightly 
from  Dr.  P's.  statement.  According  to  him,  Dr. 
Ralston  and  the  Synod  excluded  the  Old  Testa- 
ment entirely,  and  of  course  "laid  aside"  the 
Psalms  as  out  of  date  or  useless!  As  to  our 
Imody  being  prepared  by  men" — Dr.  P.  had 
better  look  at  home,  lie  can  tell  us  whether  the 
five  hundred  patches  of  "  human  composition" 
which  Et0U8€  has  tacked  to  the  inspired  Psalms, 
11  irere  prepared  by  man." 

This,  too,  suggests  the  subject  of  the  "new  \vr- 


14-4  DR.    P'S.    PERSONALITIES,    AC. 

sion"  which  has  employed  the  labors  and  studies 
and  sacrifices  of  the  United  Presbyterian  General 
Assembly  for  so  many  years.  Dr.  P.  can  inform 
us  whether  it  will  be  "prepared  by.  men,"  or  some 
higher  order  of  beings.  We  congratulate  these 
brethren,  however,  on  the  proposed  change  in  the 
first  Psalm,  from  "that  man  hath  perfect  blessed- 
ness," into  "how  blest  the  man."  Dr.  Watts  has 
it — "  the  man  is  ever  blest,"  or  "blest  is  the  man." 
As  to  this  whole  question  of  " preparation  by 
man" — among  the  twenty-five  new  versifications 
adopted  and  authorized  by  the  recent  United  Pres- 
b^  terian  General  Assembly,  take  the  example  of 
the  61st  Psalm.     We  compare  as  follows  : 

United  Presbyterian  Version. 

Lord,  hear  my  voice,  my  prayer  attend, 
From  earth's  remotest  bound  1  send 

jly  supplicating  cry: 
When  troubles  great  o'erwhelm  my  breast. 
Then  lead  me  on  the  Rock  to  rest  * 

That's  higher  far  than  I. 

Dr.  Watts'  Pabape 

Lord,  hear  my  voice,  my  prayer  attend. 
From  earth's  far  distant  coast  I  bei 

With  supplicating  ery : 
When  the  dark  storm  oerwhelms  my  breast. 
Then  lead  me  on  the  Riick  to  rest 

That's  higher  tar  than  1. 

We  have  no  room  for  other  examples — but  Dr. 
P.  can  probably  inform  us  which  of  these  was 
"prepared  by  men."  Also,  which  is  "the  true 
and  literal  translation"  of  David's  sixty-first. 


